Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GRAND UNION CANAL COMPANY.

Adjourned Debate on Question [18th December] further adjourned till the Second Sitting Day after 1st March.

Oral Answers to Questions — FREE GERMAN MOVEMENT.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of their active efforts here and now on behalf of a Great Germany and their openly expressed contempt for the Government of this country, whose guests they are, he will assure both the House and the nation that no official countenance or support whatsoever will be afforded to any association of Germans in this country calling themselves, or acting as, Free Germans?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): No official recognition has been given to a Free German movement, and none is contemplated.

Captain Graham: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that assurance, may we take it that he is as convinced as we are that with the Germans it is impossible to finesse?

Mr. Eden: I think my answer covers that.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES TROOPS, NORTHERN IRELAND (EIRE PROTEST).

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the High Commissoner for Eire left with the Foreign Office a copy of the protest presented by the Minister for Eire at Washington against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland; and whether he has any statement to make on

the evidence to this effect laid before him by the hon. Member for the Queen's University of Belfast?

Mr. Eden: As I stated in reply to a similar Question put to me by the hon. Member on 11th February, Eire affairs are dealt with by the Dominions Office; as regards the second part of his Question, the statement contained in the Bulletin of International News, a copy of which he was good enough to hand me, proved on inquiry to be without foundation.

Professor Savory: Would the Minister inform the Royal Institute of International Affairs that their bulletin reports are erroneous and misleading so far as that statement is concerned?

Mr. Eden: I think that conclusion may be drawn from my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

GERMAN RAIDER, EAST SCOTLAND.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Air why, when in a recent raid on the East of Scotland, a single German raider, flying low, was within a few hundred yards of an anti-aircraft gun which could easily have brought it down, no orders were given to fire, and it was allowed to drop its bombs and clear off without interference?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The aircraft in question appeared suddenly out of low cloud in an area where British aircraft of similar type were known to be present. It passed a light automatic gun at extreme range and was out of range before it could be positively identified as hostile. The men who fire these anti-aircraft guns do not have to wait for orders before engaging hostile aircraft.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that a civilian came out of a car and drew the attention of some soldiers on guard to the fact that a "Jerry" aeroplane was almost sitting on top of the gun, that they all recognised it as a "Jerry," and that it floated around, dropped several bombs and made off without interference of any kind?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am informed that the aeroplane did not come within 800 yards of the gun.

AEROPLANE ACCIDENT, LEYTONSTONE.

Sir Frederick Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make a statement relative to an accident to an aeroplane at Leytonstone on 10th February; whether the relatives of those who lost their lives in consequence will receive compensation; and if so, under which scales?

Sir A. Sinclair: The aircraft concerned was engaged on a training flight when it crashed. An investigation will be held, but I am advised that the aircraft was so badly damaged that it may not be possible to determine the cause of the accident. I deeply regret that five Civil Defence personnel who were in the building on which the aircraft fell were killed and that the six members of the crew also lost their lives. The question of compensation will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, 1941, in the case of the civilians, and under the War Pensions Order applicable to members of the Royal Air Force. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is the very low flying over buildings by some aircraft regarded as operationally necessary?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. Low flying is always strictly discouraged in the vicinity of buildings.

Sir H. Williams: If I give the right hon. Gentleman details of where it happens, will he be good enough to look into them?

Sir A. Sinclair: I shall be very grateful.

AIR TRAINING CORPS.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will reconsider the contribution made by his Ministry towards training headquarters for local squadrons of the Air Training Corps; when it will be possible to provide cadets with overcoats; and whether gymnastic shoes can be provided without coupons?

Sir A. Sinclair: The rates of grant pay able to units of the Air Training Corps are at present under review but the information so far available does not suggest that

any increase would be justified. As regards the second part of the Question, I regret that general shortage of material precludes the issue of greatcoats. The possibility of issuing some other form of protective clothing is being investigated. As for the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reply given to the hon. Member for Melton (Sir W. Everard) on 8th January.

Mr. Lindsay: In the review would the Minister see that this magnificent Corps is not held up by small financial considerations?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am deply interested in the success of this Corps and its welfare, and the point which the hon. Gentleman has brought to my notice is very much in my mind.

SECURITY POLICE, NORTHERN IRELAND (DISCHARGES).

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for Air on what grounds over 30 members of the Royal Air Force security police have been discharged in Northern Ireland seeing that many of these men gave up good pensionable positions in the police force in order to serve, took the required oath and were appointed for the duration of the war; and whether in justice to these men he will go carefully into this whole matter with a view to their restoration?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Dr. Little: These men have been turned down with no allowance, and is it not too bad that they should suffer through an oversight on the part of the Air Ministry?

LEAVE.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is optional for airmen to take one period of 14 days' leave instead of two periods of seven days' leave during the winter?

Mr. A. Young (Assistant Whip): I have been asked to reply. Yes Sir, so far as the exigencies of the Service permit.

DIVE BOMBERS.

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Secretary of State for Air why this country has no dive-bombers in operation, in view of the success that has been reported to have


attended their use by the enemy who have employed them in their attacks for a very long time past in various countries?

Mr. Young: I have been asked to reply. Priority in the development and production of bombers for the Royal Air Force has necessarily been accorded to types which fulfil the function of the type referred to by my hon. Friend but have other tactical uses as well.

PILOTS (PAY).

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will give the daily rates of pay of sergeant-pilots and the daily rates of pilot officers?

Sir A. Sinclair: The daily rates of pay of airmen pilots are:



s.
d.


Sergeant pilot
12
6


Sergeant pilot, after four years' service as such
13
6


Flight sergeant pilot
15
0


Warrant officer pilot
16
6


In addition these ranks receive 6d. a day war pay and will be eligible for the 6d. a day deferred pay recently approved.
The daily rate of pay of a pilot officer of the General Duties Branch is 14s. 6d.

ROYAL OBSERVER CORPS (WINTER CLOTHING).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Air, whether the issue of overcoats and warm winter clothing to members of the Royal Observer Corps has now been completed?

Mr. Young: I have been asked to reply. All members at posts now have a waterproof, fleece-lined storm coat, and issues to members at centres are in progress. If by warm winter clothing my hon. Friend means the new battle-dress type of uniform, my right hon. Friend would refer him to the reply which he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) on 20th January.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been complaints with regard to other things besides over coats, and will he see that all members of this corps have the overcoats that are now being issued?

Mr. Young: I cannot say, but I will convey the question to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES.

RECRUITMENT.

Dr. Morgan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is still to be the policy of His Majesty's Government not to recruit inhabitants of the West Indian Colonies in special West Indian regiments as has been done in all past wars; whether, having regard to the best use of man-power in African and tropical climates, such a policy will be reversed; and what special reasons exist for scattering West Indian volunteers in different British services and regiments rather than collecting them into West Indian regiments from different Colonies?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): For various reasons, it has not so far been found practicable to raise special West Indian units. West Indian volunteers with special qualifications are encouraged to join British units in which their qualifications will be most useful.

Dr. Morgan: In view of past experience, would it not be better to put these people into regiments so that they can give good service in African warfare?

Mr. Macmillan: That matter is under consideration.

LEPER SETTLEMENT, TRINIDAD (NURSING WORK).

Dr. Morgan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the invaluable nursing work done for years in the leper institutions in Trinidad by self-sacrificing nuns, among whom the reverend matron has been conspicuous for her work and for good administration; and whether official recognition or reward will be granted to these workers?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: My Noble Friend is aware of the valuable and self-sacrificing work done by the nuns in the Leper Settlement of Trinidad, and I am sure the Trinidad Government gratefully recognises its debt to them on this account.

Dr. Morgan: Will it not be better—as the principle is so well recognised—to give these institutions official recognition rather than lawyers and vested interests?

CIVIL SERVICE, TRINIDAD (WAR BONUS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to grant to the higher-paid members of the Trinidad Civil Service war bonuses now in operation with the lower-paid members?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: No, Sir. The war bonus is only given to officers with salaries not exceeding $2,500, that is, slightly over £500, a year.

Mr. Adams: Does not the Minister consider that a very unjust arrangement? Surely the burden of the increased cost of living falls upon that particular grade?

Mr. Macmillan: The practice is universal, both here and there.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA.

EUROPEAN CIVILIANS (CASUALTIES).

Captain Gammans: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to be able to make a comprehensive statement regarding the fate of Europeans left behind in Malaya; and whether he is now in a position to say how many have been killed, injured or are missing?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I regret that I cannot yet say when it may be possible to obtain information regarding the European civilians who are in Malaya. As regards casualties to civilians, the European casualties notified up to 14th February numbered 105, comprising 15 killed and died of wounds, 17 wounded, and 73 missing, including 35 believed to have been taken prisoner. Air-raid casualties reported up to 11th February numbered 2,170 killed and 3,955 injured, and these are likely to include some Europeans additional to the numbers I have just given.

AMERICAN CITIZENS, PENANG (EVACUATION ARRANGEMENTS).

Mr. Bower: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the allegations made by Mr. Elliott H. Simpson, an American importer who has recently returned to the United States of America from Penang, criticising the treatment of American citizens by the British authorities in connection with the evacuation arrangements; and whether, in view of the

serious effects which these allegations are likely to have on Anglo-American relations, he will cause an immediate inquiry to be held?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I have seen a Press report in that sense. But the information which we have been able to obtain does not confirm the accuracy of Mr. Simpson's story. It would indeed be a matter of deep regret if there was any failure under the pressure of events to show all possible consideration to the United States authorities at Penang at the time of evacuation. I am sure the House will realise that, the circumstances being what they are, an inquiry would be quite impracticable

Mr. Bower: Would the right hon. Gentleman see that the widest possible publicity is given to this Answer?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lipson: Would it not have been desirable to have issued immediately an official denial of these allegations?

Oral Answers to Questions — RETAIL DELIVERIES (RATIONALISATION).

Sir Adam Maitland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he can make a statement as to the rationalisation of retail deliveries; and what steps are to be taken to save fuel, vehicles and man-power?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): In co-operation with the Ministry of Food and the Board of Trade, meetings have been held in the regions and in all the main towns in the country at which retailers have been asked to prepare schemes for rationalising their deliveries so as to secure the maximum econmy in the use of man-power, fuel and vehicles. There has been an excellent response and we are now awaiting the formulation of schemes which will be brought into opera tion as soon as they are ready.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

SHOPKEEPERS' DELIVERY SERVICES (PUBLICITY).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Information what method was adopted to secure the maximum publicity for the Government message regarding shopkeepers'


delivery services; and why no advertising was done in the weekly newspapers published in the three Lothian counties?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): A variety of methods were employed for securing publicity for the Government message. These included local meetings and posters on retailers' delivery vans. The message was advertised in trade papers, evening papers and local weekly papers selected for the purpose of coverage by the advertising agents advising on the campaign. It was not advertised in the local weekly papers in the three Lothian counties because the Edinburgh and Glasgow evening papers were considered to give sufficient coverage in this area.

Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the value of these newspapers and recognise that they are much more closely read than the ordinary daily and evening newspapers to which he has referred, and does he realise that these three counties are great dormitory counties for the City of Edinburgh?

Mr. Bracken: Certainly, I will take the hon. Member's advice and draw the attention of our advertising experts to what he has said.

NEWS BULLETINS.

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Information what steps he is taking in view of the public dissatisfaction over the method in which the British Broadcasting Corporation presents the news of the day, especially in regard to its attempts to minimise or evade the gravity of the news issues with which it deals?

Mr. Bracken: I am not aware of any public dissatisfaction with the B.B.C.'s method of presenting news, apart from the inevitable flow of criticism from listeners of whom many hold widely divergent views on how any particular piece of news ought to be handled. I am satisfied that the B.B.C. pursues no policy of attempting to minimise or evade the gravity of news issues.

Sir L. Lyle: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, to mention only two cases, Libya and Malaya, the B.B.C. have given an entirely wrong impression of what was happening by the way in which they have presented the news?

Mr. Bracken: I think the presentation of the news varies from time to time. It is as hard to produce a news bulletin as to edit a newspaper, and the quality of each issue of a newspaper differs, but I think the criticisms made in the House are an encouragement to the B.B.C. to do better.

Mr. Granville: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House why it was that there was a delay of 10 hours on Sunday before the people of this country and the British Empire were told of the fall of Singapore?

Mr. Bracken: That does not arise out of the Question.

Sir H. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend heard any adverse comment on the B.B.C's. method of interspersing comment into the middle of official communiqués?

Mr. Bracken: I have not, but I have noticed it myself on one or two occasions. I am in a delicate position, but I have stressed to the B.B.C. the importance of giving the plainest possible news.

Sir Stanley Reed: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries as to the last war commentary issued by the B.B.C., which was calculated totally to mislead the nation?

Mr. Bracken: I shall certainly make those inquiries.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (BROADCAST SUMMARIES TO COLONIES).

Dr. Morgan: asked the Minister of Information what is the amount of the subsidies now paid by His Majesty's Government for the transmission of news summaries of Parliamentary Debates to interested Colonies: whether he is aware that the only speech mentioned in such news summaries of the Commons Colonial Debate on 20th November last was the official Government reply: and whether this sort of colonial propaganda is to be discontinued during the war?

Mr. Bracken: No subsidies are paid. Colonies receive reports of Parliamentary Debates through normal news channels, including the British Official Wireless Service. The amount of time available for reporting Debates in this service is limited by other needs, but our aim is to give a balanced account of such debates wherever possible.

Dr. Morgan: How could the report be balanced when only one side was reported?

Mr. Bracken: Obviously it was not. I do not mind telling the hon. Member that in this particular case we did not live up to our high standards.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING TRADE WORKERS, LONDON (UNEMPLOYMENT).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he is aware that the number of unemployed skilled building trade workers is rapidly increasing in the London area; and whether he has any proposals whereby these men may be employed?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): There has been some increase in unemployment among building crafts men in the London area since September, 1941, due partly to weather conditions. With regard to the second part of the Question, special steps are being taken to find other employment for these unemployed men in the building or other industries.

Mr. Morrison: When the special steps are taken, will they be announced as quickly as possible, as it is tremendously difficult for people carrying on propaganda to the effect that not a minute should be wasted when hundreds of skilled workers are signing on at the Employment Exchanges?

Mr. Hicks: I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is one of some personal anxiety to me. I have taken it up very actively, and the annnouncement will be made shortly.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Ought anybody to be unemployed in war-time?

Mr. Hicks: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCRAP METAL COLLECTION.

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings why the disused light steel railway-metals, estimated at approximately 40 tons in weight, have not been collected from the old lime kiln at Old

Burgclere, in the rural district of Kings-clere and Whitchurch, in the county of Southampton; and whether it is proposed to take any action in the matter, in view of the fact that this scrap-metal has been, since May last, the subject of correspondence between the Ministry of Supply and the local authority?

Mr. Hicks: The owners of the railway metals at Old Burgclere have maintained that the rails provide a reserve for the requirements of other works which are in production and thereby save the purchase of new material. The extent to which it is justifiable to hold this reserve is now being investigated by this Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — AID TO RUSSIA (NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LABOUR FUND).

Mr. Woods: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he is aware that responsible members of his staff, employed at the Rhyl office, were ordered to cease collections on behalf of the National Council of Labour Fund for aid to Russia; and as no objection was raised a few months ago to a similar collection under the patronage of Ali s. Churchill's Fund, whether he will take steps to see that the ban is lifted?

Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir. Permission was given for a collection in the Rhyl office, but owing to a misunderstanding, this was not given effect to in one Division. The matter has now been rectified.

Oral Answers to Questions — NURSERY SCHOOLS (HUTTING).

Major Peto: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings for what reason it has not yet been possible to make the necessary release order for the large number of ready-made huts to be used as nursery schools; and whether steps will now be taken to permit those which are available in sections in warehouses to be distributed and erected?

Mr. Hicks: All orders for hutting for nursery schools have been and are at present being promptly met out of running contracts. Additional orders will be placed as necessary to meet further requirements for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILINGS, REMOVAL (COMPENSATION).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether his attention has been called to the cost of removing railings and other ironwork from old graves; and will he undertake the expense of clearing churchyards of unnecessary metal and making good any damage so caused where the rector or vicar and church-wardens desire to have this done?

Mr. Hicks: The arrangements which my Department has made for the taking of unnecessary railings cover railings and other unnecessary metal in churchyards. Making good so far as labour and materials are available is part of these arrangements.

Mr. Hannah: The local vicar and churchwardens are not called upon to pay any expenses involved in that case?

Mr. Hicks: We make a reimbursement in respect of any damage done.

Sir William Davison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he will inform the House of the method by which freeholders who have had railings scheduled for removal which protect land purchased by them or their predecessors for purposes of recreation can obtain compensation for the loss they will sustain in being no longer able to make charges for admission; and, alternatively, will be inform the House of the statutory powers which permit of the taking of property without compensation as above?

Mr. Hicks: Owners of land from which railings are taken under the authority of the Defence General Regulations, 1939, are entitled to claim compensation under the provisions of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. Forms are obtainable from the appropriate local authorities. The second part of the Question therefore does not arise.

Sir W. Davison: Does the Minister know that the local authorities complain very much that they have no discretionary powers as to advising the Ministry, except in cases of artistic merit and danger to the public, and will he look into this matter? Is he also aware that railings have been taken away in certain London parks without the military authorities

being consulted, and that barbed wire and iron posts have had to be put up in place of the railings, and that this has taken more metal—apart from the time involved—than was obtained from the railings?

Mr. Hicks: The local authorities are asked, in the first instance, to schedule all railings that are unnecessary. The local authorities have full authority in that matter. Anyone who is disappointed with regard to the schedule may make an appeal to a local tribunal or to the Ministry.

Sir W. Davison: Is it not the case that, except in the case of artistic merit or danger to the public, the local authorities have no discretion in regard to the scheduling of the railings?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Who decides whether railings are necessary or not? Is the Minister aware that this is sometimes left to girls from the Women's Voluntary Service?

Mr. Hicks: The local authorities have to decide, in the first instance, whether the railings are necessary. Eventually the matter comes to my Ministry.

Mr. Leach: Have the Ministry got hold of Lord Baldwin's railings yet?

Mr. Hicks: We must not anticipate events.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

LEAVE.

Mr. Woods: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the arrangements for leave for men serving in the Navy?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Since the reply is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Woods: Could my right hon. Friend arrange that at least these men get leave at the end of their initial training period?

Mr. Alexander: We do our best to meet the conditions. Perhaps my hon. Friend will look at the answer which I shall circulate, and then, if he likes to put a further Question to me, I shall be glad to answer it.

Following is the reply:

The general arrangements for leave for Naval personnel are as follow:

(1) Seagoing Ships.—(a) Ships based on and regularly working from ports in the United Kingdom:—Subject to the war-time exigencies of the Service a minimum of 14 days' leave a year is given to seagoing ships permanently based in Home Waters. Leave is not restricted by any maximum when circumstances allow of more being given, and as much leave is granted as conditions permit. (b) Home Fleet ships, and other ships which may be employed at home or abroad:—When in Home Waters leave is given as and when circumstances permit, with no restriction on the number of days that may be granted in any one year.

If operational requirements or employment a way from the United Kingdom have prevented grant of leave, it is the intention that officers and men shall receive leave on not less than the foreign service scale shown at (c) below as soon as opportunity arises, e.g. when a long refit in the United Kingdom becomes due, or on paying off, or on the return of individual men to depot. (c) Ships on Foreign Service:—Foreign service leave is granted on the scale of 7 days' leave for each 6 months abroad up to a maximum of 21 days. If drafting requirements permit, an extension of foreign service leave may be granted on the scale of 7 days for every additional 6 months abroad, but when such an extension of leave is given, personnel are warned before proceeding on leave that after 21 days a telegram of recall may be sent.

(2) Stationary Ships, Shore Bases and Shore Establishments.—Leave is given at the discretion of administrative authorities, with a minimum of 14 days a year. Leave on the full peace-time scale must not necessarily be expected. (Note:—Training establishments are dealt with separately in para. 6.)

(3) Drafting leave.—The grant of normal drafting leave is not practicable in war. A few days are given if drafting requirements permit.

(4) Re-engaging leave may be given when practicable, and otherwise may be deferred.

(5) Survivors' leave.—The survivors from a ship sunk are given 14 days' leave on return to their home port depot. This cannot be in addition to foreign service leave the since drafting requirements make such extended leave impracticable; nevertheless, survivors are given every possible consideration in respect of extensions of foreign service leave as mentioned in paragraph 1 (c) above.

(6) Ratings under training.—(a) Boys and Apprentices on long service engagements; the normal peacetime arrangements apply, namely, two weeks leave at Christmas, two weeks at Easter and three weeks at Midsummer. (b) Men whose course of training is short (not exceeding 13 weeks):—A week's leave is granted on completion of training. (c) Men who undergo long training courses (about six months):—One week is given during the course and a further week on its completion.

LOSS OF HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "GLORIOUS."

Mr. Stokes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, in view of the fact that it was thought necessary to hold a court-martial over the sinking of His Majesty's Ship "Ark Royal," there has been no court-martial or inquiry into the sinking of His Majesty's Ship "Glorious"?

Mr. Alexander: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) on 31st July, 1940, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the First Lord whether, as political head, he was in control and responsible for the operations during which the ship was lost, or whether the control was taken out of his hands by the Minister of Defence?

Mr. Alexander: That is an extraordinary question to put to me. The operations that were proceeding when the "Glorious" was lost were under the proper control of the Commander-in-Chief of the area, and he was operating as he should have operated.

Mr. Stokes: That is no answer to my question.

SEA CADET CORPS.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements he has made with the Board of Education and local youth committees in order to make known the advantages of joining sea cadet units in various parts of the country?

Mr. Alexander: The two Departments are maintaining constant contact, and area officers have been appointed to super vise the five areas into which Sea Cadet Corps have now been organised. These officers will maintain the closest liaison both with local education authorities and local youth committees.

Mr. Lindsay: Does my right hon. Friend realise that boys are being inter viewed this week, and will he seize this opportunity to build up some units which are worthy of the Navy?

Mr. Alexander: I understand that that point is well in mind, and as a result of the conversation I had with my hon. Friend we are paying particular attention to some of the matters he raised.

INFRA-RED PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT.

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the First Lord, of the Admiralty whether he can give the House the assurance that His Majesty's ships are provided with adequate infra-red photographic equipment for use in conditions of poor visibility?

Mr. Alexander: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 25th March, 1941, in answer to a similar Question. Infra-red photographic equipment cannot usefully be employed in the manner suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRACTS FOR WAR DURATION (DEFINITION).

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Attorney-General whether, as many contracts have been, and are being, entered into for the duration of the war, including Government agreements, he will, by legislative action or otherwise, produce a legal definition of the term "For the duration of the war"?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): So far as private contracts are concerned, different expressions are used,

and it is probable that parties have different circumstances in mind. So far as Government contracts are concerned, this matter has been considered with a view to ensuring that words are used which will be free from ambiguity and carry out the intentions of the parties. The Government do not regard it as practicable, at any rate in present circumstances, to produce a legal definition which would satisfactorily dispose of the difficulties. If my hon. Friend has any special points of difficulty in mind, I would be very glad to consider them.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is the Attorney-General aware that a variety of contracts have been entered into for the duration of the war, and that the Government have entered into a contract with the railway companies for the duration of the war and one year after?

The Attorney-General: I know that that is so. It is not quite clear what the parties intend in regard to all the cases of private contracts. As my hon. Friend and the House know, different views may be taken on when it may be said that the war has come to an end. In some contracts it may be quite clear that it is on the termination of hostilities, but in other contracts it may be plain that it is the legal end of the war by Order in Council.

Sir F. Sanderson: Has any definite decision been arrived at in the case of the railway companies as to what is the end of the war?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAW OF DEFAMATION.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Attorney-General whether, in order to further the cause of justice and to prevent the growth of disaffection among His Majesty's subjects, His Majesty's Government will introduce legislation to provide legal protection to religious bodies and other similar communities against libels and slanders?

The Attorney-General: The Government are not prepared to introduce legislation to deal with one particular aspect of the law of defamation. My hon. Friend will be aware that a committee was established shortly before the war under the Chairmanship of Lord Porter


to inquire into the law of defamation as a whole, and that this committee was compelled to suspend further operations during the progress of the war.

Mr. Lipson: Does that answer mean that further consideration will be given to this matter? Is the Attorney-General aware that in some countries this legal protection is provided?

The Attorney-General: I think my answer meant that we are not proposing to consider amending the law in one particular respect or in another during the war.

Mr. Lipson: When a change is made, will this particular point be taken into account?

The Attorney-General: No doubt when Lord Porter's Committee resume deliberations after the war they may consider this particular aspect of the matter, and there will be nothing to prevent my hon. Friend or anyone else drawing attention to it at that time.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT WAGE POLICY.

Mr. Bower: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now consider instituting a wage policy which will be governed solely by the interests of the State, will prevent further rises in the cost of production, and will ensure that those engaged in civil occupations shall not be any better off economically than they would be if they were serving in equivalent positions in the Armed Forces of the Crown?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): The Government wage policy was adopted after consultation, and in agreement, with the representatives both of employers' organisations and trade unions. The results hitherto have been more satisfactory than those likely to have been obtained under any more direct system of Government control, and it is not pro posed therefore to depart from the present policy.

Mr. Loftus: Will the Lord Privy Seal study the legislation passed in Canada to control both wages and prices?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

ARMY BOOTS (ORDERS FOR SOUTH AFRICA).

Sir Granville Gibson: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that an order has been placed with South African factories for 1,000,000 pairs of Army boots for the Imperial Forces; and why these boots are not being made in British factories?

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to orders allocated to South Africa by the Eastern Group Supply Council to meet the requirements of Forces operating or stationed in the Eastern Group. It is the considered policy of the Government that such requirements should be supplied so far as possible from countries within the Group, so as to reduce the strain on our shipping resources.

SNOWBOUND FACTORY (PRODUCTION MAINTENANCE).

Captain Alan Graham (for Sir H. Williams): asked the Minister of Supply the name and peace-time address of the civil servant by whose exertions production was maintained in a snowbound Royal Ordnance Factory; and why, in the reports of his successful endeavours, he was described by the pseudonym of Mr. Jones instead of by his proper name?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir. The individual concerned has expressly asked that his name should not be disclosed. Excellent work was done not only by the officer in question but by the personnel of the factory, the Armed Forces and other public services.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the North and in Scotland factories and works are kept going every winter by great masses of workmen, and nobody ever thinks about them?

GOVERNMENT STOCKS (FIRE INSURANCE).

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Minister of Supply what has been the relation between the premiums paid by the Government and the claims received up to the 31st December, 1941, under the arrangement whereby stocks under the control of the Ministry are insured against fire risks with insurance companies and


Lloyds; and, where payments have been made for expenses other than those contained in the premiums, what relation do these bear to the claims received?

Sir A. Duncan: The amount of the claims settled up to 31st December last, in respect of insured stocks of raw materials under my control, is roughly 25 per cent. of the total amount of premiums paid to that date. In addition, certain claims were outstanding, and certain heavy claims have since been made. No payments have been made for expenses other than those contained in premiums.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that it would be a more straightforward policy, if it is desirable to maintain the financial strength of these insurance companies, to pay them a direct subsidy, rather than to carry out this policy of insuring Government stocks?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir, I could not adopt that policy.

Mr. Garro Jones: What is the reason for adopting this oblique method, which the public are quite unable to understand?

PAPER SUPPLIES (PUBLICATION, "FAMINE").

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Minister of Supply how, in view of the paper shortage, newsprint is available for a publication called "Famine" issued by the Peace Pledge Union Information Service?

Sir A. Duncan: According to the records of the Paper Control, no paper has been licensed for this publication, and inquiries are being made to ascertain the source of supply of the paper used for this purpose.

Mr. Walkden: Does not my right hon. Friend think, in view of the harmful and mischievous nature of the propaganda contained in this newspaper, that we should have regard, in granting paper supplies, as to whether the product is essential, harmful or helpful to the war effort?

Sir A. Duncan: The question of censorship and the advisability or inadvisability of control is at present under consideration.

Mr. Walkden: Is it not a fact that the Minister has stopped the free Press which

has done an excellent job of work in the North of England during the last 20 years?

Mr. G. Strauss: Is it not a fact that control should not be exercised according to the political views of the people concerned, which is solely a matter for the Home Secretary?

MUNITION PRODUCTION (HOME GUARD TRAINING).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Supply whether instructions have been given that urgent munition production comes before Home Guard training, in view of the number of hours required in the new Order?

Sir A. Duncan: Adequate safeguards for cases of this nature are provided in the general instructions issued by the Army Council for the Home Guard.

Mr. Hannah: Are the Government aware that there are very serious doubts on various matters?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir, I cannot say that I am aware of that.

Commander King-Hall: Is the Minister aware that there is necessarily a difference in treatment in the approach to this problem in shadow factories and in private factories and that there are many anomalies which exist at the present time?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir, I should have to look into that.

TOBACCO AND CIGARETTES (PACKING MATERIAL).

Sir S. Reed: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the issue of 68,902 tons of cigarette and tobacco boards by the Paper Control between 2nd June, 1940, and 29th November, 1941, and the shortage of board and paper material, he will consider taking more active steps to encourage the sale of tobacco and cigarettes loose instead of in packets?

Sir A. Duncan: At present ever 20 per cent. of the cigarettes distributed in the United Kingdom are packed in bulk, and every effort is being made in conjunction with the Board of Trade to promote further economies in the use of paper and board for tobacco and cigarettes.

Sir S. Reed: Is the Minister aware that it has taken more than 24 months for steps to be taken to conserve our stocks of board?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

SOAP RATIONING.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether supplementary rations of soap to various classes of workers is contemplated?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): Provision has already been made to enable miners at collieries where there are pit-head baths to obtain soap free of the ration for use at such baths. The needs of other groups are under consideration.

Mr. Higgs: Is it not possible to free medicated soap from the restrictions, and, if not, could not arrangements be made to issue coupons against a doctor's certificate?

Major Lloyd George: I will look into that matter.

Mr. T. Smith: Does the reply mean that supplementary rations of soap will be available to miners who have to wash at home because there are no pit-head baths at the pit?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot add anything to my reply. As I have said, the needs of other groups are under consideration. Pits which have pit-head baths have soap, and those which have no soap will come under review.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister expedite this decision as quickly as possible?

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Could not a uniform soap ration be granted in the case of those pits which have no pit-head baths?

Major Lloyd George: That is what I meant when I said that the needs of other groups are under consideration.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister considering the advisability of giving more soap to people living in London?

Major Lloyd George: There is a Question on the Order Paper dealing with that point.

Mr. Douglas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can arrange to increase the soap ration in the area of the Metropolitan Water Board on account of the excessive hardness of the water?

Major Lloyd George: ND, Sir.

Mr. Douglas: Does not the Minister consider that it is unfair to districts where soap does not go nearly as far?

Major Lloyd George: It is impossible to be absolutely fair. If you gave extra soap to London, you would have to give it to other areas as well, and it would be very difficult to say where hard water ends and where soft water begins.

Mr. Woods: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether provision will be made for additional soap to be allowed to meet the respective requirements of infants and babies, and families unable to make use of the service of laundries?

Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend will give careful consideration to the soap requirements of the classes referred to by my hon. Friend, but he has so far no evidence that the prescribed ration will not prove to be sufficient for every class of domestic consumer.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

DOGS.

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the necessity for conserving all foodstuffs, any steps are being taken to reduce the dog population?

Major Lloyd George: The dog population has fallen considerably since the out break of war. The question of food consumption by dogs is being kept under constant review.

GOVERNMENT STOCKS (FIRE INSURANCE).

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what has been the relation between the premiums paid by the Government and the claims received up to 31st December, 1941, under the arrangement whereby stocks under the control of the Ministry are insured against fire risks with insurance companies and Lloyds; and if


any payments have been made for expenses other than those contained in the premiums, what relation do these bear to the claims received?

Major Lloyd George: The approximate relationship between premiums and claims resulting from the insurance against fire risks on land of foodstuffs owned or controlled by the Ministry of Food during the period from the commencement of the scheme on the 1st April, 1940, to 31st December, 1941, has been that the claims have represented 87 per cent. of the premiums. This comparison takes account of the premiums payable and an estimate of the claims outstanding on 31st December, 1941. No payments have been made for expenses other than those contained in the premiums.

POTATO PROCESSING, NORTHERN IRELAND.

Dr. Little: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food when the promised potato processing factories to Northern Ireland will be in operation; and whether he anticipates that any of these factories will be ready to deal with the remainder of the 1941 potato crop?

Major Lloyd George: Delays have occurred owing to unforeseen technical difficulties in connection with the design and layout of the buildings for the potato processing plant. In consequence, though satisfactory progress is now being made, the factories will not be completed until the summer and early autumn and will not therefore be in operation during the current season.

Dr. Little: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is considerable disappointment at the fact that these factories are not ready to deal with the remainder of the 1941 crop of potatoes, and will he expedite the erection of these factories so that they may be fully equipped to deal with the 1942 crop?

Major Lloyd George: I have said that they will not be completed until the summer and early autumn.

Dr. Little: Is that a definite promise?

Major Lloyd George: As definite as can be given in this world.

PROSECUTIONS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food

whether he can give any information in connection with food offences against T. Prichard, Limited, and others, for buying and selling illegally 420 cases of dates, 2¼ tons of sugar, 6 cwt. of margarine and 3 tons of cooking fat; and what action has he taken to prevent similar actions?

Major Lloyd George: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The following firms and persons were prosecuted at the instance of the Ministry of Food at the West London Police Court on 13th February and were convicted and fined as below:

(1) Harry Morris for failing to supply invoices on a sale of 420 cases of dates and for various other offences relating to that purchase and sale of sugar, margarine and cooking fat—fined a total of £160.
(2) T. Pritchard, Ltd., for various offences in connection with the purchase and sale of sugar, margarine and cooking fats—fined £50.
(3) Tom Pritchard, director of T. Pritchard, Ltd., for various offences connected with purchase of sugar and margarine fined £100 with £10 costs.
(4) J. E. Pritchard, director of T. Pritchard, Ltd., for the same offences as Tom Pritchard, fined £100 with £10 costs.
(5) David Gold for selling sugar by wholesale above the maximum price, fined £100 with £10 costs.

In reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, the Ministry's Enforcement staff throughout the country are ceaseless in their efforts to detect such offences and to secure evidence on which proceedings may be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR AND TOBACCO (RATIONING).

Commander King-Hall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider rationing alcoholic liquor and tobacco on the basis of preferential treatment to members of the Fighting Services and workers engaged in occupations covered by the Essential Work Order.

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. I have no evidence that the Fighting Services and workers engaged upon essential production are not obtaining a fair share of the available supplies of alcoholic liquors. They have access to the ordinary facilities available to the public, and they may also obtain alcoholic refreshment at their own canteens where such canteens have been provided. My right hon. and gallant Friend the President of the Board of Trade is not prepared to ration cigarettes and tobacco at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGED HOUSES (REPAIRS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether he will inquire into the complaints from Salford that repairable houses, damaged by enemy action in December, 1940, are still unrepaired; what similar complaints he has received from other parts of the country; and what steps he proposes to take in view of the housing shortage to see that such repair able dwellings are made fit for human habitation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): First-aid repairs of war-damaged houses, to which the Government have given the highest building priority, have been practically completed throughout the country, and my right hon. Friend has received no significant complaints on this score from Salford or elsewhere. He desires to see the highest possible standard of repairs carried out to the greatest possible number of houses but the question of repairs over and above first-aid repairs is a difficult one since such work must compete, in demands on labour and materials, with the construction of aerodromes, war factories, hostels for munition workers, and other work vital to the war effort. My right hon. Friend has, however, arranged, in collaboration with my Noble Friend the Minister of Works and Buildings, that, in the absence of heavy raiding, as much labour and materials as is possible shall be made available for this further repair work and my officers are in consultaiton in the matter with the Salford Corporation.

Mr. Davies: Supposing a local authority does not take steps to repair these repairable dwellings, what can the Minister do to speed them up?

Miss Horsbrugh: I have said that the officers are in consultation, and I think we shall get a report from the officers of the Ministry as to the condition of the houses.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

WOUNDED PERSONNEL (INFORNIATION TO RELATIVES).

Captain Profumo: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will given an assurance that the fullest possible information is communicated to the relatives of wounded met as to the nature and seriousness of their injury and their condition; and that every facility be given to relatives to enable them to correspond with casualties in the quickest possible manner?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Sandys): The amount of information which can be communicated to the relative of a wounded man is limited in the first instance by the facilities for communication. The first intimation that an officer or man is wounded comes by telegram direct from the theatre of operations. It will, therefore, be understood that only bare details can be telegraphed. Whilst the natural anxiety of relatives is fully appreciated, it is not possible, owing to the restricted means of communication, to add to the amount of detail which is now officially telegraphed. If, as the result of wounds, injuries, or sickness, an individual becomes seriously or dangerously ill, this information is telegraphed home and communicated to his relatives, together with particulars of his address. It is open to persons in this country to correspond with men serving overseas by telegram. In addition there is the air-graph service to the Middle East. Every effort is being made to increase the facilities for communication with all theatres of war.

OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War how much it would cost to restore the cuts imposed in 1935 on retired officers' pensions?

Mr. Sandys: There was no cut imposed in 1935 on retired officers' pensions. Officers' retired pay, which had previously seen subject to cost of living adjustments, was stabilised, in common with the pay and pensions of the Fighting Services and


the Civil Service, at or slightly above the level at which it then stood. The cost to increase the rates of retired pay to the standard rates originally fixed in 1919 would amount to approximately £325,000 a year for officers at present in receipt of retired pay, and probably about £500,000 a year when these numbers are increased at the end of the war by the relegation to retired pay of officers now serving. Moreover, officers' retired pay could not be dealt with in isolation and the cost of applying a similar principle over the whole field of service emoluments and pensions would be very much greater.

Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this cut in retired pay amounted to as much as 9 per cent. in individual cases? Will he not give consideration to this restoration, because there are a great many retired officers who are suffering considerable hardship?

Mr. Sandys: I explained that the £325,000 is not a total figure. This question cannot be considered apart from the rate of pension of retired State servants as a whole.

Mr. Lipson: The hon. Gentleman is only asked to deal with this aspect of the question. Any other case can be dealt with when it arises. This is a problem which ought to be dealt with, and the cut ought to be restored.

Mr. Sandys: The Chancellor of the Exchequer could never agree to look at one aspect of a thing in isolation.

Mr. Lipson: Has the Chancellor been approached on the matter?

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS (CALL-UP).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of students at Oxford University, who have voluntarily enlisted in the Forces and who have been informed that, if they did so, they would not be called up till after their final examinations in June, have now been told that their call-up will be at the end of the present term in April; and will he agree to a postponement of about two months to enable them to take their final examination, in view of the difference it would make to their careers?

Mr. Sandys: It has been agreed between the Ministry of Labour and

National Service and the university authorities that an undergraduate who has been enlisted and relegated to the reserve will have his calling-up postponed until he has completed at least three academic terms at the university. Applications for postponement beyond this period in exceptional cases when students are on the point of taking important examinations should be submitted through the university authorities, and if sup ported by them will be sympathetically considered on the merits of each case.

ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Mr. Collindridge: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, as the result of the improved scales of pay and allowances to members of the Forces, of which the House was informed on 10th February, it is proposed to make any corresponding adjustments in the war service grants that are at present in issue?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): A complete review of all war service grants in issue was recently carried out in order to bring them into line with the principles laid down in Command 6318. It is not intended to undertake a further general review at this stage; but as and when a grant comes up for reconsideration for other reasons it will be reassessed on the basis of the facts then existing, including the actual allowances in issue by the Service Department.

Mr. Collindridge: Is not the increase of 1s. on ordinary allowances to be given to recipients of war service grants?

Sir W. Womersley: When settling what should be the war service grant we have to take into account the income from the Service, and if there is an increase it must be taken into account at the time of the review.

Mr. Collindridge: Is the Minister aware of the wide dissatisfaction that his announcement will give?

Sir W. Womersley: It should give satisfaction, because I have stated that we are not going to review all these cases straight away, but we must deal with them under the terms laid down by Parliament as and when we have to review them.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Minister of Pensions whether pensions to officers' widows are now awarded on the basis of the full rank of the husband who was serving in a lower rank when he lost his life; and in how many cases pensions have been awarded, since the outbreak of war, to widows of such deceased officers?

Sir W. Womersley: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave him yesterday in reply to a similar Question addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this question particularly concerns naval officers serving under the Admiralty, and can he say what is the position of a large number of officers who have lost their lives while serving as commodores of convoys and who were admirals?

Sir W. Womersley: My hon. and gallant Friend had better have a word with me about those particular cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE PENSIONS.

Dr. Little: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether as all pensioners, specially those who were retired on small pensions many years ago, are finding it difficult to subsist on their present pensions owing to war conditions, he will review the entire pension question for the purpose of granting an adequate in crease to meet the present pressing need?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): This question covers a wide field. Many of the classes of pensioner which my hon. Friend no doubt has in mind were fixed at consolidated rates in 1935 following the Government decision that pensions of Crown servants should no longer be subject to cost-of-living adjustments. In view of the difficulties which war inevitably brings to many sections of the community, my right hon. Friend would be unwilling to single out State pensioners for special treatment. The policy of price stabilisation, the benefits of which are felt by all, has done much to mitigate hardship.

Dr. Little: As the grievances of these pensioners are serious indeed, will my right hon. and gallant Friend take into

consideration the appointment of a commission to go into the whole question with a view to readjustment of the grievances and an increase of the pensions?

Mr. Levy: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that where old age pensioners are doing a little war work, the old age pension is taken into account with what extra they are earning for the purposes of Income Tax? Does he think that the pensions ought to be taken into account? May I have an answer?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. Surely we are entitled to an answer to a Supplementary Question?

Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members continue calling "Answer," it does not give the Minister an opportunity.

Mr. Levy: On a point of Order. When I put a Supplementary Question to my right hon. and gallant Friend which is relevant to the Question on the Paper, is it courteous to the House and to the Member putting the question that he should sit mute and make no endeavour to answer?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister is no doubt prepared to answer the Question if hon. Members will give him time to do so.

Captain Crookshank: I was about to say that the Supplementary Questions merely prove what I sail, that this question covers a wide field. I could not answer without notice the Income Tax position of a particular class of old age pensioner, but if my hon. Friend will put a Question on the Paper I will do my best to give him a proper answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PROFESSIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL PERSONS (SERVICE).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the fact that departments have made use of the services of professional and industrial men whose firms or companies have continued financial and contractual relationships with the department in which this service is being rendered, and as this arrangement is variously interpreted so that individual gentlemen who thus give their services are being increasingly the subject of Parliamentary criticism,


he will, in fairness to them and in the public interest, have this whole question considered by an appropriate body that will enjoy public confidence?

Captain Crookshank: The considerations to be observed in such cases are laid down in a Treasury Circular of which my right hon. Friend is sending my hon. Friend a copy. These arrangements were reported on by the Select Committee on Public Accounts in paragraphs 3 to 5 of their report for 1941, to which I would refer my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend does not think any further inquiry is called for. The Committee, while not suggesting any general change in the existing rules, emphasised the need for carefully watching the position, and Departments are again being instructed to that effect.

Mr. Simmonds: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend give the House an assurance that the Government accept a clear responsibility, when they retain these gentlemen in their service, to extend to them in both the House and the country the same protection that they extend to other efficient and loyal servants of the Crown?

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Have the Ministry of Works and Buildings paid any attention to that recommendation?

Sir A. Maitland: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider issuing in the OFFICIAL REPORT the terms of the circular to which he referred?

Captain Crookshank: I will consider that; I have not asked my right hon. Friend on that point. It is to be recognised that these gentlemen—and there may be some ladies for all I know—who are giving this kind of service to the State in time of war should have it properly recognised that they are doing their duty.

Mr. Hopkinson: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend call it "giving" their services in the circumstances?

Mr. Simmonds: May I have a reply to my Supplementary Question whether the Government will give an assurance that they will extend the same protection to these ladies and gentlemen as they do to other loyal servants of the Crown?

Captain Crookshank: I do not really know what the hon. Gentleman means. If he wants answers to questions which are only distantly related to the original one, I would much rather he put them down so that I can ask my right hon. Friend, to whom this Question was addressed, for a reply.

PAPER ECONOMY.

Sir A. Maitland: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that public efforts for the collection of wastepaper are likely to be neutralised by the waste of paper in some Government Departments; and if he will take steps to secure the strictest economising of paper in all Departments of State?

Captain Crookshank: Continuous efforts have been made to secure economy in the use of paper by Government Departments, and large economies have in fact been effected. If my hon. Friend thinks that further economy can be effected in any particular case and will let me know of it, I shall be glad to investigate it further.

Sir A. Maitland: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend be good enough to make inquiry of the Ministry of Information? Is he aware that it seems to be a habit of that Ministry to send prospective visitors to Northern Ireland about 13 ozs. of the most innocuous and puerile propaganda it is possible to imagine?

Captain Crookshank: Any questions about the Ministry of Information had better be asked of the Minister. This Question deals with paper in Government Departments generally. For nearly two years there has been in existence a paper shortage committee, consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Supply and the Stationery Office, which goes through all the demands for printing and paper.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the Government stop the printing of official documents four times and sometimes five times over?

Mr. Lipson: Are returns asked for from Government Departments as to the extent to which they have been able to reduce their demands on paper?

Captain Crookshank: I car not say offhand, but the demands are being reduced because, among other reasons, of the shortage of the supply of paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (IDLE TIME).

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is aware of the discontent in a certain aircraft factory, where men who are being paid £5 a week and doing nothing to earn it, want to get released so that they can engage in real war work; and whether this factory is paid on the cost-plus basis?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Montague): The factory to which it is assumed my hon. Friend refers is just beginning production of a new type of equipment. Every endeavour is made to find alternative work for men whose normal work is interrupted by the teething troubles which are inevitable in the early stages of production. I am aware that there has been an element of discontent in this factory, and steps have been taken, including measures to strengthen the management, by the appointment of a new Joint Works Manager, and I expect that the difficulties mentioned will be effectually overcome. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Purbrick: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in this factory a man was recently fined—he was not fined, but he was dismissed—because he had had 20 weeks at £5 a week and nothing to do during that period?

Mr. Montague: I notice that the statement has now gone up from 15 weeks to 20 weeks. It is considerably exaggerated. This man was offered alternative employment in the factory and refused to take it.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Why should this state of affairs exist at all?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will there be a joint consultative committee, on which the workers will be represented, in this particular factory?

Mr. Montague: There is such a committee in existence, and I would suggest that it should be used rather than that there should be unofficial representations in this House on subjects of this character.

Mr. Walkden: I am delighted to hear it, because I did not know of the fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION (INIER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether lie will state the last date on which the chairman of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Civil Aviation attended a meeting of the committee; and the number of meetings of the committee which have been held since that date?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): While it is contrary to the normal practice to disclose details of committees of this kind, there is no objection to my saying that the Chairman attended the last meeting of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Civil Aviation which was held early in January.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLLIERY EXPLOSION, BARNSLEY.

Mr. Collindridge: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give particulars of the explosion at Barnsley Main Colliery yesterday?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I regret having to report that an explosion occurred yesterday at the Barnsley Main Colliery. From information I have received it appears that a fire had broken out at the coal face in the previous night and that it had been found necessary to seal off the district. This work was in progress yesterday when an explosion occurred at about 12.45 p.m. After the explosion a roll call was made and 12 men were found to be missing. Nine bodies have been recovered, three others have not yet been found; about 37 men are known to have been injured. There is to be a further inspection of the mine to-day. I hope to be able to secure more detailed information in a day or two. I am sure the House will join in an expression of sympathy with the relatives of the deceased men and with the injured.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I wish to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make on the Business of the House for to-day?

Mr. Attlee: We propose to ask the House to pass the Ministers of the Crown and House of Commons Disqualification


Bill through all its stages to-day, in order to clear the way for the Debate on the War Situation in the next series of Sittings, which the House generally desires. The Bill has to be considered in another place and must become law early in March. I hope this proposal will be agreeable to the House. We also propose to take the remaining stages of the Securities (Validation) Bill.

Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask whether His Majesty's Government are aware that though this may be necessary on this occasion it is a highly regrettable necessity, and clearly affords a very strong argument why legislation which has to be renewed annually should be brought forward six or seven weeks beforehand? Otherwise, annual renewal becomes more of a freehold than would be the case if the provision had not been put in the legislation at all.

Mr. Attlee: We had a Debate on the Report, and then the Bill had to be drafted. We wanted to take the views of the House on the Report first of all. That is the reason.

Mr. Maxton: Can the right hon. Gentle man tell me how I can proceed to put down Amendments to the Committee stage?

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1941).

Estimate presented,—of the further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1942 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply and to be printed. [No. 45.]

NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1941).

Estimate presented,—of the further sum required to be voted for the Navy for the year ending 31st March, 1942 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 46.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1942.

Estimates presented,—for the Navy for the financial year 1942 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 47.]

AIR SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1941).

Estimate presented,—of the further sum required to be voted for Air Services for the year ending 31st March, 1942 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 48.]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1942.

Estimates presented,—for the financial year 1942 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 49.]

Orders of the Day — MINISTERS OF THE CROWN AND HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALI FICATION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move,"That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House of Commons Disqualification (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1941, received the Royal Assent on 6th March of that year. It was to be in force for a year only, and therefore it expires on 6th


March this year, and the present Bill is in effect one to continue the provisions of that Act for another year. The House is very familiar with the Act and, indeed, with this topic generally. It was not only fully discussed when the Act of 1939 was passed, but it has been referred to the Select Committee and considered by them, and their Report was discussed in this House only a short time ago. Therefore I do not propose to go into the general purposes of the original Measure and the machinery under it, because those are matters with which the House is very familiar. The Select Committee made certain suggestions with regard to alterations which might be incorporated in any Bill such as this renewing and extending the period of the original Act. The first recommendation was that any renewing Bill should be for a limited period only and should expire at the end of 12 months. That purpose is effected by Clause 2 of this Bill. Hon. Members will see that where the expression "one year" occurred in the original Act this Bill substitutes two years. The Committee made three or four other suggestions. All of them have been carefully considered. Two of them we have not adopted in this Bill, and I desire to say a word or two to explain the reasons which have led us to that decision.
The Committee suggested that the certificate which the Prime Minister issues in operating the Act should state, in addition to what it states already, that the Member's retaining his membership in this House was required in the public interest. That will be found on page 42 or 43. The Government have considered that suggestion very carefully and, for reasons which I will outline and which I hope will commend themselves to the House, do not think it would be an appropriate or an advisable alteration. The basis of the proposal embodied in the Bill and in the previous Act is that in war time there may be work which, in the public interest, Members should be able to perform, if asked to do so by the Prime Minister or by the Government, without being forced to resign their seats.
It is implicit in the granting of the Prime Minister's certificate that the case is one in which, in his opinion, the Member should not have to face the dilemma either to refuse the work offered him or to resign. That is the dilemma

which a Member has to face in normal times, if the Government or anyone in authority thinks that the Member is suitable to perform work which would disqualify him for membership. The Member has to make up his mind either to do the work and thereby vacate his seat, or to refuse the work and to retain his seat. It is for the Member to decide whether he can properly accept the appointment and, if so, to apply for the certificate and so retain his membership. For the Prime Minister to certify that it is in the public interest that he should retain his membership would be, in effect, to decide for the Member what his duty was, and that would be inappropriate.
The suggestion is open to the further objection that it would, in effect, be a pronouncement by the head of the executive Government on a matter which must, as we see it, be one for the Member and between the Member and his constituents. In such cases as have occurred I have no reason to suppose that any constituents have not approved and welcomed the course taken by their Member in accepting an appointment, whatever it was, accepting the certificate and remaining a Member of this House. Supposing, however, that some of the constituents of a Member objected and did what they are entitled to do, make representations to their Member on the subject, saying, "You are not to accept the appointment, or, if you do, you ought to resign your membership," those representations would be for the Member to consider. It would be constitutionally wrong if the Prime Minister were brought into that controversy. To answer to such a representation, "The Prime Minister has said it is in the public interest that I should remain a Member," would be overstepping the mark, and it would be a wrong function to put on to the Prime Minister. It would be going beyond what is either necessary or constitutionally proper.
If the matter is left as it is at present, the Prime Minister is stating, for reasons which are familiar, that a Member ought not, as a matter of law, to be compelled to resign if he does accept the post. It is for the Member to consider and to decide whether, on his own judgment and paying such regard as he should to such representations as he may have had from his constituents urging him to remain, he


should accept the post and apply for the certificate. We have considered the matter very carefully, and, for the reasons I have outlined, we are against inserting in the certificate words such as those suggested in the Report, or similar words.
The next suggestion was one put forward in the form of words in which it appears in the Report, and it was referred to by the Chairman of Ways and Means, who was Chairman of the Committee, when we discussed the Report the other day. The idea in this suggestion is that greater publicity might be desirable when certificates under the Act are given to individual Members. The suggestion in the Report is that they might be announced by Mr. Speaker, but the Chairman of Ways and Means gave conclusive reasons, which were accepted as such by the House, against adopting the suggestion in that form. He went on to say that arrangements might possibly be made, with Mr. Speaker's consent, for the granting of these certificates to be reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT. This is not a matter which would involve legislation, but it ought to be referred to for a moment. It is very much a matter for Members. The presentation of the certificates appears at present in the Proceedings which are sent to Members, but if the House felt it desirable that there should be further publicity, subject to Mr. Speaker's consent, on the lines of the suggestion in the speech of the Chairman of Ways and Means the other day, namely, having the certificates printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT—though I do not think it ought to be regarded as a pre cedent—the Government certainly believe that such a suggestion might commend itself to the House.
The next suggestion of the Committee, one, I think, of great importance, was that there should be a limit inserted in the renewing Bill as to the number of Members who might at one time be protected by these certificates from the disqualifying provisions of the Act of 1707. The Government have accepted that suggestion, and therefore Clause 1 provides that the number of persons exempted from disqualification at one time shall not exceed 25. The Committee went on to suggest that if the fixed number were adopted, it would not be unreasonable to provide that that number could be exceeded should it be found desirable in the public interest to do so but only if

an Order in Council was made on an Address presented to His Majesty by this House. Both those suggestions have been adopted and embodied in Clause 1. I may say a word or two about this number of 25. There are, at present, I understand, some 18 certificates so that unless one or other of the Members who are now protected should drop out and, by giving up his appointment, should cease to be a person exempted from disqualification, that means that seven are still in hand, subject to emergencies.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Does the figure of 18 include the right hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)?

The Attorney-General: No. The right hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was an Ambassador, and under an old Ruling of this House, the grounds of which nobody has ever quite understood, an Ambassador does not come within the scope of this disqualification. That leaves, as I say, seven, and I hope the House will agree that we have put the limit sufficiently high and will accept the proposed figure as reasonable and as carrying out, in the letter and in the spirit, the recommendations, or rather the suggestions of the Committee. They made one other suggestion—land I would repeat that they put these forward, not as definite recommendations, but as suggestions for consideration—that the House might consider whether the exemption from disqualification should not be limited to some stated period of time, unless continued by an Order in Council based on an Address or a Resolution of the House.
It may be worth while reminding the House that the appointments are in any event limited in time by Section 1 (4) of the original Act to the date when the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act expires. That Act is renewed from year to year. The House keeps its hand on that Act and on its renewal every year. There is a provision that if the emergency comes to an end within one of the years of renewal there can be an Order in Council bringing it to an end at that date. The appointments are, in any event, limited by the duration of that Act, which, as I have said, comes up from year to year. We felt in the first place, that the nature of the work which would properly he brought under the operations of this Measure might be such that it would be


undesirable to leave it uncertain whether an appointment could or could not continue during the war period. It might give rise to difficulty if it were uncertain that a man could continue doing a certain work, even though he enjoyed the confidence of the Government in his work. One might feel confident that he would get the renewal but it would not be quite certain and, clearly, there might be work to which it would not be desirable to put a definite term.
We also felt that circumstances might make it very undesirable, in the public interest, to have a Debate on the work that a particular public servant was doing at the time when his renewal came up at the end of the original period, as fixed. No doubt there would be occasions when the House could raise matters of that kind, but circumstances might make it undesirable, for instance, if a Member were working in relation to some foreign country, that there should have to be discussion or opportunities of discussion on the question of renewal, in his case. For those reasons we recommend the House to leave that matter as it is. I think that covers all the suggestions made by the Committee. We have given very careful consideration to them and have made up our minds in the sense I have stated.
Clause 3 deals with quite a different matter and arises out of a different paragraph of the Committee's Report. It deals with the Ministers of the Crown (Emergency Appointments) Act, 1939, which enables a Minister appointed for purposes connected with the prosecution of the war to sit in this House, and, as applied to him, prevents the normal disqualification. It also contains a Section enabling statutory powers to be transferred to him from another Minister and other consequential provisions. It is, for example, by reason of Orders under this Act that the Minister of Aircraft Production can hold that appointment and sit in this House, and it is under this Act that certain powers formerly vested in the Air Ministry have been transferred to the Minister of Aircraft Production. It has also application in other cases with which the House is familiar, such as the Minister of Information, the Minister of Shipping, the Minister of War Transport, and so on. The wording of Section I is:
His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that this Act shall apply to any Minister of the Crown appointed for the purpose of

exercising functions connected with the prosecution of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged.
The Committee took two points on that, and I will deal with the second point first. They say that the powers continue in respect of "any war" in which His Majesty may be engaged; they are not limited to the present war, and therefore, if, unhappily, after the conclusion of the present war, we remain—it might be merely technically—in a state of war with a small and possibly insignificant country, the powers existing under the Act would, theoretically at any rate, continue and be exercised. Then they take the further point that even apart from. "any war," the Act was not on its face as it were stamped as an emergency Act, by which I mean, an Act to be operated for the present emergency, and they thought it desirable that it should be so stamped or marked. We have accepted their suggestion, and Clause 3 provides that the Act shall be repealed on such dates as His Majesty may by Order in Council declare to be the date on which the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of the Act—clearly the present it war—came to an end.
Of course, it is impossible for anybody to define now the precise circumstances under which the various different forms of emergency legislation and powers can properly be brought to an end, because the emergency goes on for differing periods according to the type of circumstances being considered. For instance, a whole group of war difficulties disappear on the termination of hostilities. The black-out and evacuation may then be no longer necessary, and there is indeed a whole group of measures the necessity for which will come to an end at that date. But when you take the various matters with which these Ministries deal, it may be necessary in some cases to go on dealing for a longer period with problems which have arisen directly out of the present emergency. What the Committee intended was to make it quite clear that this Act is to be repealed when the problems arising out of the present emergency, which led to the setting up of these Ministries, come to an end.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have thought of the point I wish to raise. What precisely is the meaning of


the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of that Act"?
Let me visualise a special point. "The emergency" was the war against Germany; Italy had not then come in. Suppose the war with Germany was to end, and either the war with Italy or, what is quite conceivable, the war with Japan was to continue. Will the Attorney-General tell us whether, in his opinion, that would be
the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of that Act"?

The Attorney-General: In my view, the words:
the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of that Act
include what in one sense, one might say, has been added by the adherence to our then enemy of two new enemies in the shape of Italy and Japan, and until those three enemies are disposed of, the emergency which gave rise to the passing of the Act has not concluded. That, I think, is what the words would mean. I was about to add this: I do not make any prophecy or forecast one way or the other about it, but it may be that some functions which have arisen for the first time in wartime, some technical functions possibly connected with food supply and so on, may require to be continued in a modified form after the emergency as part of the permanent structure of the country. By putting in this provision, I think it is made plainer than it was before that if it is desired to do that, there will have to be fresh legislation, and I think that is right. This Act is to enable these things to be done during the war, for the purposes of the emergency and for a limited time after the cessation of hostilities. If any of these things are to survive in some form or other as part of our permanent structure, there will have to be new and permanent legislation.
There is one other very small point that I might mention. On looking into this Act, it occurred to me that there were certain provisions in Section 4 of the original Act of 1930 about documents signed by the Minister being acceptable in evidence and so on. Possibly pro vision ought to be made for that to be continued, even though the Act and the Ministries come to an end, because in litigation afterwards it might be necessary to prove an act of a Minister. It would be a very technical Amendment, and we

could probably make it in another place, but I had it in mind and mention it now.
For these reasons I commend the Bill to the House. I know the Committee realise how very carefully we have studied their Report, and I hope they will feel that we have given very careful consideration to their suggestions. Without necessarily hoping that they will accept all the arguments I have put forward, I hope they will at any rate feel that we have not failed to adopt any suggestions without having good reasons for such failure.

Mr. Petrick-Lawrence: All I have to say can be said in a very few words. My hon. Friends have considered this Bill; we gave our support to the original Act, we supported what was said a few days ago on the Report of the Committee, and in general terms I think the Government have embodied the principal recommendations in this proposal. For those reasons we shall give it our support. The points on which there is some slight divergence between the Report and what has actually been embodied in this Bill will, of course, arise on the Committee stage, but, speaking offhand and without having heard the arguments which no doubt the supporters of the Report will put forward for an alteration of the Bill, I think the Attorney-General has made out a case for putting it on the Statute Book.

Wing-Commander James: I hope that in view of the very short time which is to elapse between the Second Reading and the Committee stage we shall be allowed some slight latitude in our remarks on the Second Reading. I only want to bring two points to the notice of the Attorney-General. The first is this: Efforts have always been made to keep separate the judiciary and the Executive, and more recently an effort has been made to keep one great organ of publicity, the B.B.C., free from the direct control of the Executive. I very much regret that it has not been possible in this Bill to raise the question of inter connection between the Press and the Executive in two directions. I do not want to make difficulties or to stir up mud—

Mr. Speaker: Surely the hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. I cannot see any connection between this Bill and the Press.

Wing-Commander James: I was going to show that there might be a connection at a later stage.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member had better wait until that time comes.

Wing-Commander James: I accept your Ruling. The other point is the question of the employment in the Ministries of Press officers. I think they are called public relations officers. It is surely notorious at the present time that in one Ministry especially the Minister uses his Press officer not only to publicise and popularise the work of his Ministry, but even to popularise himself.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. and gallant Member has got hold of the wrong Bill. That has nothing to do with this Bill at all.

Wing-Commander James: I will withdraw on both counts, but I hope I have made my points plain.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I do not wish to take up much time, as I am interested only in one particular point which the Attorney-General mentioned, that is, with regard to this certificate. His argument seemed to me to be that it was a matter entirely for the Member of Parliament to decide whether he accepted an office or whether he did not in the public interest, and that really it was not fair to him or to the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister should say that it was in the public interest that he should retain his seat and at the same time take up an office which prevented him, or might prevent him, from doing his Parliamentary duties. He suggested that in most cases, indeed in all cases, he said, the constituents of Members of Parliament who have been placed in this position have raised no objection. It seems to me extremely difficult for constituents as a whole to voice their opinions in this matter. I look upon the whole question as one of real, material importance. I disapproved entirely of the view that was expressed by the Prime Minister that it was possible, for a man to hold his position in the House of Commons and at the same time to do work of urgent national importance outside it. Therefore, I look upon this matter in a rather different frame of mind from that of my right hon. and learned Friend.
It seems to me more and more clear that if a man is to be asked to retain his seat in Parliament and do other work, it should be made amply clear to his constituents that this is really in the public interest, because otherwise it is not fair on the Member of Parliament. It seems to me completely unfair that a man should be placed in that position when it really is in the public interest that he should take up a new job which prevents him entirely from acting for his constituents. In the old days it was not a matter of very much importance, but those of us who are Members at present realise that a Member has a hundred and one different things to do, and is always being called upon by his constituents to do things for them, and to help them in one way and another. Therefore, that it should be left for the Member to decide entirely "on his own" when the Prime Minister could so easily make it clear by a certificate to the effect that it was in the public interest seems to me to be asking too much of the Member. I cannot for the life of me see what objection there could be to this being made clear in the certificate.
We were rather handicapped in the Select Committee when we came to consider this whole question by the fact that the House had passed an Act so recently. We could not make recommendations; we could only offer suggestions as to how the Act might be modified. I think, if I recollect aright—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that we were practically unanimous on this particular point, that we all thought that in common fairness to the Member of Parliament, and in the general public interest, it was highly desirable that the Prime Minister should make this recommendation by a certificate to the effect that it was really in the national interest that a Member of Parliament who might have been sent abroad for a period of years was yet to remain a Member of Parliament, and that in those circumstances the interests of constituents were to go to the wall. It seems to me that the Government, have made a very great mistake in this matter and that the argument adduced by my right hon. and learned Friend that a Member of Parliament must himself make the decision, is a wrong one, and that it would be much simpler if the recommendation or the suggestion of the Committee were adopted by the Government.

Mr. Pickthorn: I had hoped to commend myself to you, Sir, and the House, by refraining on this occasion, but since the learned Attorney-General has developed what it is courteous to regard as his full argument on a point which might otherwise have been discussed on an Amendment, I think that probably this is the appropriate occasion for dealing with that argument, and then the Committee stage might be short. Before coming to that specific point, I should like to make this preliminary point. If an Act is an annual Act, it becomes in fact more of a freehold than an Act for seven years or 77 years, unless at the time when it comes up for renewal it is definitely possible for the House to consider whether it shall be renewed in that form, or not at all, or with considerable alterations. I fully understand the difficulties in which the Government find themselves this year. Heaven knows in the scale of events which surround us, it is difficult for any one of us to attach any importance to any of this business, but presumably we must do so. If we give up doing it, we almost give up sanity itself; it is necessary to take our ordinary business with our ordinary seriousness.
What are we confronted with in this Bill? We are within a few Parliamentary days when this or some such Bill must become a Statute, or the Government will say, "You are making it impossible for us to carry on the business of the country because we cannot, shall we say, ask the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) to continue to be public relations officer to the Ministry of Aircraft Production while remaining a Member of the House." I quite see that as a result of the events of the last week or two an urgency has been put on our proceedings which was certainly not designed by the Government. I say that it ought to be a lesson to them, if the House is really to be treated with respect, if bringing Bills to the House is not to be merely observance and ceremonial. In war-time more especially no one ever knows what events will impinge within the next 24 hours. These Bills must be brought in in plenty of time for Members to consider Amendments and so on, or they are not annual Bills at all.
I now come to what seems the main part of the Attorney-General's argument. I am bound to say I thought it was rather frail and tenuous. He said there would be

gross constitutional impropriety in any arrangement that resulted in the Prime Minister saying whether or not a man should continue to be a Member of this House. There has never been anything more essential to the Prime Minister, after the selecting of his colleagues, than saying whom he wants and does not want to be in this House. Anything which would suggest that there would be something unconstitutional in the Prime Minister taking an interest in this matter seems to me to be reaching a degree of improbability which the comic poets never attempted.
Suppose the Prime Minister decides to-morrow that there must be a new Ministry set up for extracting sunbeams from cucumbers, and that the Member for Treorchy must be the private relations officer or adviser to that Ministry. One or two suggestions must arise in the Prime Minister's mind. Perhaps he says to himself, "My friend Snooks happens to be Member for Treorchy and it is perfectly clear that he would be much the best private relations officer to the Ministry for Extracting Sunbeams from Cucumbers; therefore, I must ask him to serve his country by accepting that office. What is more," says the Prime Minister to himself, "he will not be so useful to the war effort in that office if he leaves the House of Commons as he would be if he stayed there." In those circumstances, there is no difficulty in the Prime Minister giving him the certificate in the old form or in the new form suggested. But suppose that the Prime Minister merely decides that Mr. Snooks would be a very good private relations officer to the Ministry for Extracting Sunbeams from Cucumbers, and, on further examining his conscience, the Prime Minister does not think that it is additionally necessary to the war effort that Mr. Snooks should continue to be Member for Treorchy. In that case, he does not sign the certificate.
The argument of the learned Attorney merely means that a great many Members are enjoying a freedom to combine normality with abnormality which no other persons in the country are enjoying. I cannot believe that that is a proper result. I would not wish to compete with the learned Attorney on points of law, but I ask his consideration of the following argument. I take it that this


certificate can never be brought before a court of law. Therefore the learned Attorney's ipse dixit is the last word. When he tells us what the certificate means, that is that. But is he perfectly certain that no other lawyer could possibly have taken any other view? Let us see what the certificate says:
Now, therefore, I, Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, First Lord of the Treasury, hereby certify that"—
I happen to be reading the certificate which was issued to my own colleague—
Professor Archibald Vivian Hill, Member of the Commons House of Parliament, is required in the public interest.…
What are the operative words, surely the words after "I, Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill"? I take it that the most operative words are "First Lord of the Treasury;" the name is less material, it might have happened to be the right hon. James Maxton. The words that have to be there are "First Lord of the Treasury." The words "First Lord of the Treasury" have that importance; but the words "Member of the Commons House of Parliament" are no less important, coming after the name Archibald Vivian Hill. If that is so, the certificate is already doing that which the learned Attorney says would be intolerable. If on the other hand the learned Attorney is certain that his view of the law is right, there is a strong argument against handing out sugar plums to Members of Parliament in this way. Everybody is told to do this or that in the national interest, to give up practising at the Bar or keeping a shop or something else, in order to help to fight his country's enemies. But a Member of this House is allowed to keep his membership dormant, just as the grains of wheat in the tombs of the Pharaohs are said to have kept their germination suspended during the centuries.
If the learned Attorney is not certain, if there might be other competent lawyers who would disagree with his view, I think that his argument is more than ever blown to pieces. You might say, on the basis of my second argument at any rate, on the assumption that the Attorney is mistaken, that it is not necessary to tighten the certificate; but it is necessary, for this reason. No doubt, in the eyes of a strict moralist, every one of us is guilty of perjury every day. There is hardly a

day in which everybody does not slip into stating something which is not exactly true, because he has not made himself as certain as he might have what his words mean. That is true even of hon. Members of this House; even of right hon. Members of this House—

Mr. Mathers: It might be better if the hon. Gentleman would speak only for himself.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry; I thought we were all miserable sinners, but there might be Members of the Kirk of Scotland or of the Front Benches who are not. If a very strict moralist takes the line that one is guilty of perjury in making a statement without examining it as closely as one might, there is scarcely a day in which we do not sink into that fault. That is so even in the case of hon. Members of this House, perhaps rather less of right hon. Members, because they are more careful, and because they have people to advise them of the implications of what they are going to say. The importance of this in relation to one of my arguments is that if the words mean what I am inclined to think they mean, it is not fair to the First Lord of the Treasury or to the potential beneficiary that it should not be absolutely clear to the First Lord at the time of certification exactly what it is that he is going to certify.

Mr. Ernest Evans: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), I had not intended to take part in the Debate on the Second Reading, but I had thought of addressing the Committee, at the next stage, on two Clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), which, unfortunately, he will not be able to move himself, on account of illness. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General de voted a good deal of his speech to a point about which speeches had already been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Newcastle (Sir C. Headlam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University. I should have thought that this proposal was not in conflict with the principle of the Bill, and until my right hon. and learned Friend spoke I did not think it was in conflict with the policy of the Government. It is necessary that some words of this character should be inserted


in the Bill, because we are dealing with a very novel situation. When this House passes legislation, that legislation can be used as a precedent on future occasions. When one is dealing with an unusual situation, it is desirable to incorporate, in clear terms, in the legislation the principles which are responsible for the production of that legislation, so that it cannot be abused or wrongly used as a precedent in future. Here, it is perfectly clear that the suggestion which has been made meets with the real purpose which the House of Commons thought it was implementing when it originally passed the Act.
My right hon. and learned Friend has tried to get rid of the point by saying that there is a dilemma implicit in the situation, and that the dilemma ought to be settled by the Member himself. But the dilemma is made by the Prime Minister, or by the Government. In normal times the situation was perfectly simple. The Member of Parliament was asked to undertake a certain responsibility. If that responsibility was incompatible with membership of this House, he knew that he would have to resign his seat. It is because the Government did not want him to do that that this legislation was passed, and the dilemma is not one created by the Member himself, but one imposed upon him by the Government. It is unfair to put the responsibility of deciding upon the Member himself. It is introducing a very unfortunate discrimination. One Member may say, "I think that the job that I am asked to do is so important that I would like to give up my membership of the Horse of Commons." Another Member may say, "I think that I can carry on both." The constituents of these respected Members may say, "Look at So-and-so. He was much more honourable than our Members. He gave up his membership of the House of Commons." You are putting a very difficult obligation upon Members of Parliament to decide for themselves, especially in view of the fact that it is the Government who have put them into this dilemma. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University has pointed out that the mere fact that the Prime Minister asked a Member of this House to undertake a particular responsibility at the present time means that he wants that particular Member for that particular job and still wants him to retain his membership of the

House of Commons. If he wants him to do that, why not say so in the certificate? It would be much fairer to the Member and to the country as a whole.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it is easy for constituents to make representations. How are they, to do it? Is the party caucus to do it, or is the party that is opposed to the Member to do it? They might do it, but would the Government pay any attention either to them or to the Member himself? All this talk about taking it to the constituents is really ridiculous. The Government have to face the fact that they want a Member of this House to do a particular job and to remain a Member of this House, and since they want him to do that, it is only fair that they should say so in the certificate.

Major Sir George Davies: Like other speakers, I supposed that this matter would really come up on the Committee stage, but as the Second Reading and subsequent stages are almost to be one and the point we are discussing is in an Amendment in the form of a new Clause, it is perhaps better to concentrate upon the Second Reading Debate and consequently shorten the time when it comes to the Committee stage. Like other speakers, I regret that my right hon. and learned Friend has had to take the action that he has over this matter. We of the Select Committee have spent a great deal of time and thought on this point and regard it as of great importance. It is something that has developed out of the new technique made necessary by the present war conditions. We have been afraid, as other hon. Members have pointed out, that this was open to a wrongful use or to abuse, and also put a Private Member into an intolerable position.
It is all very well for the Attorney-General to say that this is a dilemma which the hon. Member can solve himself. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) pointed out, it is a dilemma which has been fore upon the hon. Member. It does not face up to reality. The real fact of the matter is that for some reason or other it is desirable to appoint someone to a certain job and that someone is a Member of this House. The Member says, "If I take on that job, I shall have to give up my seat in the House of Commons. A successor will go there. If and when a general election


comes at some future date, and I still have aspirations to continue as a Member of Parliament, I may merely be one of the long list of candidates looking for a seat somewhere, whereas for years I have nursed, and, to the best of my ability represented, my present seat. It is asking too much, and therefore I refuse the appointment." Therefore, the authorities may say, "We so much wish you to have the appointment that we will give the certificate." That certificate introduces an element of unreality because the point is that it is essential in the interests, not of the Member, but of the war effort, that that individual should remain a Member of this House. It is that to which we are facing up and also the possibility of an abuse of it if it became more widespread. I really hope that after the Attorney-General has listened to the views expressed on Second Reading he will give this matter reconsideration, because we consider it is one of great importance.
In our activities in the Select Committee we were impressed by the fact that when the question of Offices of Profit under the Crown arose in the early days of chaotic peace legislation one of the early considerations of those deciding these matters was the physical question of whether a Member of Parliament could or could not be in two places at once. What was behind many of the decisions was that a Member of Parliament could not be carrying out the duties of a certain office and also attending to his affairs here. The increasing rapidity of transport and other things have altered these considerations very much, but they apply to those who are sent long distances away and overseas. If it is a question of the appointment, as was picturesquely indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), of a publicity officer or something of that sort, it is possible to combine such offices and for a Member to be a fairly constant attender at this House and to that extent be properly representing his constituency. But if he is sent to an overseas job for the duration, it brings up a very different consideration. It is idle to think that any form of referendum could be made to his constituents, because not only is it impossible to make such a reference to his supporters, but it is also impossible to make reference to his opponents, for they are his constituents if not his supporters,

and they are equally disfranchised if he can no longer give his proper time and attention to this House. I want to reinforce what has been said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that it is not a trivial matter but one of considerable moment requiring really further consideration on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Hannah: I had no intention of speaking when I remained in the House for the discussion on this Bill, but I feel such strong sympathy with back bench Members who have spoken that I feel that I must add my voice to theirs. In recent years the position of a Member of Parliament has been wholly changed. I believe it is a true story that when, long ago, a much respected Member of this House was travelling down in Sussex he was told that the place at which he was staying was called Bramber. The name seemed strangely familiar to him, and he suddenly remembered that it was the place he represented in Parliament, but he had not very clearly realised just where he was before.
My own experience in my first Parliament, having come into public life comparatively late in my own lifetime, is, emphatically, that the ordinary business of a Member of Parliament is far more important in his own division. There he can do far more than in his actual work in this House. He must, of course, attend to pressing duties in this House. I do not for a moment deny that, but, on the whole, he will probably find more scope for his usefulness in his own division than here. I think that that fact is rather ignored by the present form of the Bill. By what the learned Attorney-General has said, it seems to me to be unfair that the Member of Parliament must himself decide. In time of war let him, like anybody else, be at the disposal of the Government, and if the Government say he must do this or that and it this desirable for him to retain his seat in this House, by all means let him do so. But I feel that it is definitely unfair that a Member should be asked to make that decision for himself, and I feel sure the average constituent would feel that too. The average constituent, I know, is much more interested in what his particular Member is doing in his constituency than in this House.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am selecting the second new Clause on the Order Paper.

Mr. Ernest Evans: The fact that you are not calling the first proposed new Clause—(Form of Certificate)—Colonel Clifton Brown, puts us in a very consider able difficulty, because much of the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill was devoted to the very proposal contained in that new Clause. We were looking forward to a reply from the Attorney-General, which, I understand, he is anxious to make.

The Deputy-Chairman: If it would be more convenient, I will call the Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn).

Mr. Pickthorn: I would rather defer discussion on my new Clause until the other Clause is disposed of.

The Deputy-Chairman: Then I will call upon the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Ernest Evans) to move the second new Clause on the Paper.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Limitation of period of certificate.)

No certificate shall be issued to any member who is appointed to an office or post involving residence abroad for more than three years unless an address shall have been presented to His Majesty by the Commons House of Parliament praying that the period shall be extended in any particular case. His Majesty may by Order in Council give effect to this.—[Mr. Ernest Evans.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ernest Evans: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This proposed new Clause deals with a limited number of cases and asks that no certificates shall be issued to any Member who is appointed to an office or post involving residence abroad for more

than three years. There was a good deal of misgiving on the part of many Members of the House when the original Bill was introduced and passed. One was the question of hardship upon constituents in a case where a Member was asked to undertake one of the responsible duties which are covered by the operation of the original Bill. Where individuals are resident in this country, I think it is conceivable that a Member with the assistance of his colleagues would manage in such a way that his constituents would not seriously suffer, but where a man is appointed to a post which involves residence abroad, and especially residence abroad for a considerable period, it is quite clear that the rights of constituents are seriously affected. It is the purpose of this new Clause to try to avoid that.

Sir C. Headlam: Would it be possible for a Member of this House under the Bill, if it becomes law, to be appointed for a definite period of time? Would it not depend entirely on the extension of the Act? When the new Clause alludes to a Member of this House being appointed for three years to some post abroad under the terms of this Bill, is that a possibility? Would it not depend entirely upon the duration of the Act?

The Attorney-General: If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at Clause 2, Sub-section (2), of the original Bill, be will see that that provided that persons appointed should continue. It was recognised that people appointed to important posts abroad should have their official heads cut off, as it were, automatically, at the end of the year. With regard to this new Clause, as the hon. Gentleman who moved it said, so far as posts in this country are concerned most of them do not impede the ordinary work of a Member of Parliament, and may impede as little or less work connected with the war effort, which many Members do in ordinary circumstances. The difficulty we feel about this fixed-term proposal, as I see it, is that there is a certain unreality in fixing a term when you are appointing a man to the sort of work or position that would be likely to come under this Bill. We know that Ambassadors, entitled to hold office under the Crown, are not disqualified. That would be a very typical case. As I have said, there seems to be a certain unreality about appointing an Ambassador for a period of one year. The


mover of the Clause has suggested three years. I agree that that is a substantial period. It may be that substantial progress with the war will be made by the end of the next three years. There is no reason why we should not hope that we may be getting into a period when all this business will come to an end, but there is a certain unreality about the question of imposing a fixed term designed to be shorter than the war.
The other point is one which may or may not influence people's minds very much, but I think it is one that has some substance. Whether the period were one year or three years, there would come a time when the question would be raised whether the Member concerned should continue in the position, and a special Resolution would be required. If he held a position in some foreign country, there might be very considerable misunderstanding, and there might be a Debate which all parts of the House might think was undesirable. That is another reason against the hon. Member's proposal. These appointments are limited by the emergency, but we feel that a further limitation such as that suggested would create the difficulties to which I have referred, and, therefore, I hope the hon. Member will not press the new Clause.

Sir Dennis Herbert: There is one point that I ought to bring out here. It is that the new Clause which is now before the Committee—at any rate, according to the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General—does not, in my view, carry out what was the suggestion made by the Select Committee. My impression was—and certainly it was the intention of the Committee in making this suggestion—that the immunity from the necesssity of ceasing to be a Member of the House should not continue for more than a certain period of years. We did not for a moment wish to suggest that if a Member was appointed to some post abroad, that post must be limited to a certain number of years. The Member would be appointed to that post with the advantage of a certificate which relieved him from losing his seat in the House. All we wanted was that if he remained in that post for more than a certain period at a time, he should, unless it was otherwise decided, then come under the original disqualification and cease to be a Member of the

House. I think we ought to hear from the Attorney-General what is the Government's view.

The Attorney-General: I had not misunderstood the new Clause, although I may have used words which gave the impression that I had. I was assuming that the Member would have very good grounds for wanting to retain his seat, and, therefore, if he did, he would have to give up the post.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of form of Certificate.)

The form of the certificate required by section one of the House of Commons Disqualification (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1941, shall be amended in the second paragraph by inserting the words "whale remaining a Member of the said House" before the words "is required in the public interest for purposes connected with the prosecution of the present war."—[Mr. Pickthorn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Having formally moved the new Clause, may I be allowed to say the very few words I want to say after the Attorney-General has replied on the general argument?

The Attorney-General: As hon. Members will remember I dealt with this matter to some extent when I was moving the Second Reading of the Bill. Having listened to the discussion, I am not sure that the gap between the Government and those hon. Members who spoke on this matter in the Second Reading Debate is as large as some hon. Members represented. I said—and I repeat—that it is, of course, implicit in the granting of the certificate by the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister considers that the case in question is one in which the Member should be free to accept the work without, as a matter of law, disqualifying himself as a Member. That seems to me to cover most of the points that were made about the difficulty of the private Member's position, and so on. I think that the suggestion contained in the new Clause goes beyond what is reasonable and proper. I think we all agree that the Prime Minister, by giving the certificate, implies that the appointment is one which in present circumstances he thinks the Member should


be able to take without being forced to resign. The new Clause suggests that the Prime Minister should go further than that, and should certify that it is in the public interest that the Member should remain a Member of the House. I think that goes beyond the realities of the situation.

Mr. Pickthorn: May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that one of the main arguments for passing the original Bill used by the First Lord of the Treasury was the necessity of increasing the prestige of certain offices by having them held by Members of this House?

The Attorney-General: But it was also a part of that speech that, although my right hon. Friend realised that some Members took a different view, in his view the vast majority of the House did not feel there was any inconsistency in Members accepting during war time appointments of this kind. Naturally, every Member would consider the position vis-à-vis his constituents. It was pointed out that many Members of the House are serving in the Armed Forces, and that many of them may be abroad for the whole period of the war, and that they might become prisoners of war, and so be cut off from their constituencies. All that has been sanctioned quite apart from this Bill. I do not think that on that occasion my right hon. Friend said anything inconsistent with what I am now saying. It must be a matter for the Member. A Member is approached, because the Government or some Department think that he could do some useful work. It is for the Member, in the first instance, to consider whether he will take the appointment or not, and then, if the appointment is abroad, he has to consider whether he can reconcile it with his duty to his constituents, just as every Member who joins the Forces has to consider whether it is consistent with his duty to his constituents to do so. These are matters that can be dealt with, and have to be dealt with in other connections.
Then, following up the procedure, the Prime Minister expresses his willingness to give the certificate—and that may be of value to the Member in reinforcing his own judgment in the matter—that this is a case in which he considers the Member should be free to accept the position without being forced to resign. When

one goes further and asks the Prime Minister to certify that it is in the public interest—which, in effect, is what the new Clause proposes—that the Member should remain a Member of the House, it goes beyond the proper function as between the Government on the one hand and the Member on the other. I thought that the picture which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) drew underlined every objection I have put forward. He imagined the Prime Minister to be considering the Member for Treorchy, and saying, "I do not think he is very much good as a Member of the House."

Mr. Pickthorn: No.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member gave two alternatives. He said the Prime Minister might say, "I do not think A is very much good, and I do not see why he should not go;" and in the other case, he might say, "I certify that it is in the public interest that he should remain." If it is to be automatic, then surely it is sufficient to rest on the implications in the certificate. I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument, but what I consider to be implicit is what I have stated, namely, that the Prime Minister regards this as a case in which a Member should be free to accept an appointment without being forced to resign his SE at. I am still unconvinced that it would be necessay, appropriate or right to ask the Prime Minister, in effect, to go on certifying that it is in the public interest that a Member should remain a Member of this House. We have not considered the matter unsympathetically—my right hon. Friend himself has considered it—but we think it would be inappropriate for the certificate to go further than it does, for the reasons I have explained.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not quite sure, whether the Attorney-General is really prepared to assert without fear of contradiction what in his opinion are the implications of the words "Member of the Commons House" after A. V. Hill as compared with the words "First Lord of the Treasury," after W. S. Churchill. His opinion, no doubt, is the best opinion in this House and infinitely better than mine. But he is under a moral obligation on this occasion to be extremely scrupulous in this matter, because he is giving a legal opinion which has no chance of being challenged. He has not answered


my question and stated whether he is perfectly certain that all competent lawyers would agree, or whether he would lay ten to one that this view would be upheld if the matter were brought before the King's Bench and up to the Lords. I know that that is a lot to ask of a lawyer, but, unless the Attorney-General is prepared to make some sort of pledge on this point, the relevance of his argument is not of much value. Of course when the Attorney-General states what is the implication, I do not say that he is cheating, or that he is intellectually dishonest or anything of that sort; he holds that view, and on an ordinary Measure we could accept his word as probably right, and yet know the opposite meaning might turn out the right one, because the thing would be open to challenge in the courts. However, in this case there is no machinery, I think, whereby this matter could ever reach the courts.
If I may revert to my illustration of the hon. Member for Treorchy, I would point out that my right hon. and learned Friend unintentionally misrepresented my argument. I was not suggesting that the Prime Minister should take one Member and say that, because he was no good in the House, he could go, and, therefore, they would give him a job; and that in the case of another Member he should say that because he was a good Member, he should be given a certificate. Suppose a job falls vacant. We all know what would happen in France; the Minister would look round among his friends; and in Germany the Minister would look round among Members of the party. Here the First Lord of the Treasury would send for his advisers to say merely who was the best possible man to do the job. It might happen that the advisers came back and said there was only one man for the job and he happened to be a Member of Parliament. In my view, the Prime Minister should then ask himself this question: Is this matter one of such importance that the Member concerned ought to be willing, as a sacrifice to his country, to leave his seat? or, if it is not, then is it the sort of job and is he the sort of man where I can properly certify that it is in the interests of victory that he should combine the two? No one wishes to be controversial and we are all

conscious of the excessive amount of work which rests upon the Prime Minister. It is extremely difficult on looking through this list of persons and offices to say that it is obvious and perfectly clear why it was necessary for "X" and "Y" to hold both office and seat in order to hasten on victory. All that we ask is that, whatever is certified, the questions to be answered before signing the certificate should be brought clearly to the mind of the person who has to sign. I do not consider that is placing an excessive burden: on the contrary, I consider it is making it easier and quicker for the Prime Minister to decide.
And finally, if I may without impertinence, I would beg my right hon. and learned Friend not to use again the argument which has been so frequently used about the analogy with Members who are in the Forces. That is an entirely different thing. Death dignifies everything. It is one thing, to say that a Member who wishes to go out and be shot at shall not have to suffer also the penalty of giving up his seat; and it is another thing to say that a Member who wishes to be a Governor of the B.B.C., or a public relations officer somewhere or other shall have an extra privilege. If that argument is to be used, there is a riposte, namely, that many of the Members who do go into the Armed Forces ought not to do so, but only those who are going actually to fight, or to exercise some technical skill of which they are among the rare possessors.

Captain Godfrey Nicholson: I consider that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I do not consider that the question of whether an hon. Member should remain a Member of this House on receiving an appointment is a question to be decided by the Prime Minister. It seems to me that it is entirely a matter for the electorate to say whether a Member should remain a Member of this House. The fact that a man is a Member of this House should have nothing whatever to do with the consideration of the qualifications of a Member for a post. It is looking at the question from the wrong end of the telescope to say that the holding of a post should be a disqualification for a Member of this House on the grounds that the Member is or is not of use.

Mr. Loftus: I am afraid that I was not present during the Second Reading of this Bill, but I have listened to the Debate on this new Clause, and I must confess that I found the remarks of the Attorney-General quite unconvincing. If I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman aright, the argument he used was that the decision whether a Member should retain his seat in the House should not be embodied in the certificate issued by the Prime Minister, because it is essentially a matter for the Member him self to decide. That seems to me a most dangerous argument, because it is making a man adjudge in his own case, a case which may involve very delicate considerations and a case where an outside individual should obviously be the judge. To leave the onus entirely on the Member himself is wrong, and there should be some outside person or authority to decide. It might conceivably be unfair in some cases to ask the individual to make the decision.

Mr. Maxton: I am profoundly dissatisfied with the way in which the Government are dealing with this Amendment. I think those who have taken the view that the Prime Minister should make the double certification had by far the best of the very close discussion that took place in the Committee, and the Attorney-General's answers to-day do not seem to me to dissipate in any way the opinion that I have formed that the Prime Minister should not do this sort of thing carelessly at all. He should not be sending Members of the House haphazard all over the place and saying: "Yes, it is all right, go to Panama or Venezuela or Singapore, as long as it is quiet there, and keep your seat in the House." The hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Attorney-General both made the point that, if the suggestion is accepted, that is equivalent to the Prime Minister saying who is to be a Member of the House and who is not. He is doing it now, and he is doing it in a casual and irresponsible way, as far as that aspect of the position is concerned. No doubt he is making the appointments having regard to the qualifications of a particular man for the particular post to which he is appointing him. He is doing that seriously because that is what he is asked to certify. On the Attorney-General's own showing, as far as membership of the House is concerned, he says: "Yes, it is all right. If you feel

like it, you can remain a Member of the House. If you do not, you can resign your seat." He has said to the very first appointee to a job, "You can go out of the country for four years; it will be all right by me." That is taking a responsibility on his own shoulders towards the person concerned, but it is not taking a responsibility to the House.
If I remember rightly, every single Member of the Committee, composed of very different types of individuals, ranging from the Chairman of Ways and Means to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), with myself as a moderating influence between the two extremes, felt that when the Prime Minister was making one of these appointments to an Office of Profit under the Crown which would normally have unseated the Member, he ought to certify that not only was it in the public interest that the particular Member should go to the particular job, but that he should also retain his seat in the House of Commons, and that the Prime Minister, when he sat down solemnly to decide whether he would issue a certificate or not, should go over the whole range of these two conceptions, first, "This man is the appropriate man for the particular post and an office of profit, and, secondly, it is essential for the best performance of the lob to which I am putting him that he should retain his membership in the House of Commons." When he does that, he does not, in my view, remove from the individual Member the onus that still remains with him, and it certainly does not take away from the constituency the right to get up on its hind legs and say, "We are not having our Member in that position" and to take every step open to it. [Interruption]. I have seen Members made so uncomfortable by their constituencies that they have found it desirable to re sign. I admit that it is difficult, particularly in war-time, but if I were an elector in Ross and Cromarty, I should start seeing if there was not a certain amount of objection to the position which could be made vocal and effective, and I think it could be done.

Captain Nicholson: Why in this case should you insert the Prime Minister between the electors and the Member, whereas you are not giving the Prime Minister power to call upon a Member to resign his seat if he never attends the


House? You are introducing a novel element and saying that the Prime Minister is qualified to say whether a Member can claim to represent his constituency.

Mr. Maxton: The Prime Minister took it on his own shoulders to say that Offices of Profit under the Crown, which up to recently were incompatible with member ship of the House, should become compatible with membership of the House if he issued a certificate.

Captain Nicholson: What he is really saying is, "I wish to have a full field of talent open to me."

Mr. Maxton: He might say, "I think the hon. Member for Bridgeton would be a first-class man to maintain public relations with Timbuktu." He might say—this is one of the old conceptions of these appointments abroad—"Thank God, Timbuktu is a long way off, and he will not be able to come back from there." Prime Ministers have always said that when appointing people to positions which carried them out of the country. But now the Prime Minister says, "I am not only going to send them away to these foreign appointments; I am going to say that at the same time they can do that and remain Members of the House of Commons." That is a new power that the Prime Minster has taken to himself.

Mr. Silverman: Is the suggestion being made that to enable the Prime Minister to do that all the more effectively he should also say, in order the more easily to induce the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to go to Timbuktu, he could do so without sacrificing his seat in the House of Commons and that it would be in the public interest for the hon. Member to be a Member of the House of Commons and reside in Timbuktu?

Mr. Maxton: The Prime Minister has arrogated to himself the power to say that the hon. Member for Bridgeton may go to Timbuktu physically and still remain a Member of this House. What the Select Committee are saying is that the Prime Minister ought to say in explicit terms to the House, and not to the man concerned merely, that it is, in the view of the First Lord of the Treasury, speaking for the Government, desirable and in the public interest that he should go to Timbuktu,

and that not only is it desirable in the public interest that he should go to Timbuktu, but in the public interest that he should retain his seat in the House of Commons.

Mr. Silverman: That would be dangerous.

Mr. Maxton: The reason for the appointment of the Select Committee was that this whole thing was dangerous, but it does not make it more dangerous to make the thing explicit instead of implicit. The purpose of this new Clause is to impress on the Prime Minister the serious thing that he is doing. He is doing a thing that has two aspects; he certifies the one as being necessary in the public interest, and that, so far as the other is concerned, it does not matter, the man can do as he likes and remain a Member of the House or not as he phases. We say that the Prime Minister should say definitely to the man who is appointed, "You are needed in the public interest to go to this job and you are needed in the public interest to remain a Member of the House." Both things should be stated plainly and certainly in the certificate that he grants. At any moment when he is granting a certificate it will be in the hands of the House to say, "We can see why so-and-so should go to Singapore or Australia, but we cannot see why he must retain his membership of this House."

Mr. Silverman: Cannot the House do that without this new Clause?

Mr. Maxton: I am not saying that there is a tremendous difference, and that is why I fail to appreciate the point of the Attorney-General's stubborn resistance. There is not a tremendous difference, but there is just this difference, that the Prime Minister does not say now that the man must remain a Member of the House, and if the House then argues with him he can say, "I never said that." If, however, he does say it in the certificate, the House can take action.

Captain Nicholson: If a Member is appointed to Timbuktu and there is a difference between him and many of his constituents as to whether he should re main a Member, and if he resigned and stood again on that issue and was re elected on the understanding that he should go to Timbuktu, is the Prime Minister also to have the right to say that he shall remain a Member of this House?

Mr. Maxton: That is a point I would like to think about. Normally, a man appointed to Timbuktu is disqualified automatically. He would have an Office of Profit under the Crown and he would be disqualified to stand as a candidate for Parliament. That is the normal law on the subject, and I do not know whether an acquiescent constituency snakes a law any better or easier, but, so far as my own general view on the subject is concerned, if a constituency says, "You can go to the far ends of the earth and we will be represented by you there just as well as if you were in Westminster," I would certainly say that the spirit of democracy would be preserved but the intelligence of democracy would have sunk to a very low level.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SECURITIES (VALIDATION) BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved—
That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, extending Section 1 of the Act to—

(1) the Queensferry and Shotton Areas of the Rural District of Hawarden; and
(2) the Parish of Feltwell in the Rural District of Downham;

copies of which were presented to this House on 17th February, be approved."—[Mr. TV. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE DIRECTION (PROSECUTION).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. W. Whiteley.]

Mr. Gallacher: I want to draw attention to what I consider to be gross injustice and inexcusable persecution. When we were discussing some Regulations affecting employers of labour, I took occasion to remark that workers could be found guilty before being taken

into court and that all the court had to do was to impose sentence. Some of the legal men in this House were inclined to be very sceptical of such an assertion, and one who sits on this side and whose legal brilliance has dazzled his own sparsely-furnished mind told me in the most superior and supercilious manner that I did not know what I was talking about. There are many Members who still adopt the same attitude towards ordinary workers as they did towards coloured people, despite the fact that the world has changed and that coloured people are now in many cases laying down the law to the superior whites, and that one of these days the workers will begin to lay down the law to the superior members of the ruling classes. At any rate, I was told I was talking nonsense. I will deal with this case of a miner from my own constituency by quoting certain letters. The first is a letter which was sent by a firm of solicitors to the Minister of Labour. They say:
HUGH GROSSETT.
We desire to bring before you personally the position with regard to this man who was formerly a miner and is now employed in connection with the building of houses at the Special Scottish Housing Scheme, Admiralty Road, Rosyth. Grossett was ordered to take up work as a stripper and machineman with the Fife Colliery Co., Ltd., at Lumphinnans No. XI, Kelty, by written direction dated September, 1941, his period of employment to commence on 22nd September at 6 a.m. We understand that Grossett duly appealed that he was not fit to work as a miner, and we believe his appeal was turned down although we have no official notice of the position. The circumstances relating to this man seem so extraordinary to us that we think it right you should know of the pressure that is being put upon people who are not fit to resume work in the mines. We therefore state the grounds on which Grossett appealed and may say that he was not advised by us in regard to his appeal. The grounds of appeal as stated were as follows;
'Firstly, I suffer from the removal of my cartilage from my right leg, October, 1929. Secondly, I had the muscle of my heart racked in June, 1930. Thirdly, I had my right hand poisoned in December, 1930. Fourthly, I had my left leg broken in two places above the ankle and across instep on April, 1931. Fifthly, I had my collar bone broken and my ribs fractured and my neck strained on September, 1935. Sixthly, I had my back racked on 1938. Seventhly, I had my left leg broken below knee in December, 1938, and I appeal on the abovemention as I feel I am unable for pit work and I have been advised by doctors on several times to leave the pits as it is detrimental to my health. I enclose my doctor's certificate as follows above.'


Grossett tells us he refuses to go back to the mines because he sustained severe injuries in seven accidents while working there and he feels that he is not able to do the heavy work of a stripper and that he should not be called upon to incur the risk of further accidents. His own doctor has certified that he is fit only for light work and that the roads underground are too rough for him walking on owing to injuries previously sustained by him to both his legs. A further extraordinary feature of this case is that about three years ago, after he had suffered in six accidents, he received a post-card from his employers warning hire about his accidents and informing him that if he had a further accident he would not be further employed by the coal company. On behalf of our client we ask that this man's case should be investigated, as it seems clear that he is not likely to make a satisfactory miner at his age of 44, and that the compulsory powers of your Ministry should not be used to force an unfit man to take up work in the pits.
In reply there came this letter from the solicitor's department of the Ministry of Labour:
Hugh Grossett. Defence (General) Regulations, 1939. I am instructed to acknowledge your letter of the 14th November addressed to the Minister of Labour and National Service and to inform you that consideration has been given to the matter.
That is the satisfaction they got from the Minister of Labour. At the sheriff's court, Hugh Grossett was charged at the instance of the complainer that:
Having by registered letter dated 17th September, 1941, posted at Dunfermline to and received by you at your dwelling house, 90, Blair Street, Kelty, on or about 18th September, 1941, received directions given in pursuance of No. 58A of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, on behalf of the Minister of Labour and National Service in accordance with his instructions, signed said letter by James Thomson, a National Service Officer, to perform the following services being services which in the opinion of said Minister you were capable of performing viz., you were to be employed by the Fife Coal Co. Ltd., as a stripper and machineman at their Lumphinnans No. XI Colliery, Kelty, to begin said employment not later than 6 a.m. on 22nd September, 1941, you did fail to comply with said directions and have since said 22nd September, 1941, remained in other employment, contrary to No. 58A of the Defence (General) Regulations, whereby you are liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding £100 or to both such imprisonment and such fine.
Then Grossett is taken into court. The sheriff sentences this man, who has as clean a record as any man could possibly have, to 14 days' imprisonment. There was no attempt on the part of the sheriff to discuss the thing and to consider whether this man was fit to carry on that

employment. All the decisions regarding whether or not the man was fit for the work were taken outside the court and all that had to be done in the court was to decide on the character of the sentence to be imposed. The man was found guilty before he went to court. He had appealed to the appeal committee and they had turned down his claim, and thereupon the Labour official simply had to hand the matter over to the Procurator Fiscal and the man was taken into court. The firm of solicitors, Messrs. J. T. Tinman & Co., then wrote to me the following letter:
On behalf of Mr. Hugh Grossett, of 90, Blair St., Kelty, and with a view to seeing that real justice is done, we venture to submit to you the following facts:

(1) Grossett is a miner and was employed as such till September, 1939. He then met with an accident—a fracture of the left leg. Prior to that he had six other accidents, particulars of which you will see in the copy Minute of Admissions which was lodged in the prosecution against him to-day for failing to go back to the mines in terms of No. 58A of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939.
(2) Grossett registered on 19th July, 1941, under the Coal Mining Regulation Order 1941 as an ex-stripper, at the same time declaring himself unwilling to return to work in the pits.
(3) Grossett was called by the Ministry of Labour and National Service to be medically examined on 25th August, 1941. That examination was made by Dr. Alan Tuke, Dumfermline, who certified Grossett as fit for underground employment in coal mining.
(4) Grossett was ordered to take up work as a stripper and machine man at the Lumphinnans No. 11 Colliery of the Fife Coal Co., Ltd, on 16th September, 1941, by notice sent to Grossett by registered post on 11th September, 1941.
(5) Grossett appealed against that direction. His appeal was heard by the Local Appeal Board on 16th September, 1941. Grossett gave his history of his accidents, and he produced certificates from Dr. Stirling, Cowdenbeath, and Dr. Stirling's locum, Dr. Coghlan, to the effect that he was unfit for underground work. Mr. James Cooke, Miner's Agen"—

who is actually the general secretary of the Fife Miners' Union—
also appeared before the Board and gave it as his opinion that Grossett was not now fit for work in the pit.
Then he goes on to explain how Grossett did not comply with that direction, and then he says:
(9) It thus seems that the Appeal Committee have accepted the unsupported word of Dr. Tuke that Grossett is fit for work in the mines in the face of the evidence by


Grossett by Dr. Stirling and Dr. Coghlan supported by the opinion of Mr. James Cooke. It is therefore necessary to ask what kind of a doctor Dr. Alan Tuke is that his word should be accepted as against Grossett's word, the two other doctors concerned and a miners agent who gave his opinion. Dr. Tuke is a medical practitioner in Dunfermline of considerable standing, but his impartiality is questioned, and we give you the following instances coming under our notice within the last three months which show, in our clients' opinion, that he is not an impartial medical adviser:

(a) In one case he certified a man as fully recovered from an accident (not a mining accident) when he had not seen that man for six weeks prior to the certificate, even if then, and his opinion was not confirmed by an independent surgeon in Edinburgh who found the man not recovered and suggested that he should make a further medical examination of him in another month;
(b) In another case he passed a man as fit to return to work in the mine, that man being engaged in coal distribution in Dunfermline and having lost the sight of one eye through an explosion; and
(c) In another case, a medical referee having found on 22nd October, 1941, that a man had not recovered from an accident and was unfit for work, Dr. Tuke on 4th December gave an opinion to the effect that he was fully recovered, this opinion necessitating a further medical reference."

In regard to this Dr. Tuke, I would like a special inquiry made into his associations I do not know him personally and I have never seen him but you have only to mention his name at a meeting of Fife miners to hear one of the loudest outbursts of ribald laughter that it is possible to hear anywhere. The document goes on:
(10) To-day, Grossett was tried on a complaint that he had failed to return to work and the Sheriff, rejecting a legal argument submitted by us, convicted him and sentenced him to fourteen days' imprisonment.
I spoke to the Lord Advocate about the matter. I gave him all the material about it, but I heard nothing from him. I sent him the following letter:
Dear LORD ADVOCATE,
A few clays ago I left you some papers sent to me by Messrs. Tinman &amp; Co., Dunfermline, Solicitors, relating to the case of Mr. Grossett who had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment … you said that such questions were a matter for the Ministry of Labour for whom he was partly acting. Since then I have made inquiries … I am now of the opinion that it is necessary to have an inquiry made into the conduct of the Sheriff. Had he given a balanced legal judgment"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member has just mentioned that he suggested an inquiry into the conduct of the sheriff. It is out of Order to do so because that is casting a reflection on one of the judges.

Mr. Gallacher: Then I will merely say that I wrote a letter to the Lord Advocate. Hon. Members will probably appreciate the tone of that letter. I received from the Lord Advocate a letter dated 30th January, in which he said:
Dear Mr. Gallacher,
I think you are under some misapprehension with regard to the position of the Sheriff. The case was brought under Defence Regulation 58A in respect of an alleged failure to comply with a direction of the local national service officer to perform services which, in the opinion of the Ministry of Labour, the accused was capable of performing. The Sheriff had no jurisdiction to consider whether or not an accused was in fact capable of performing this service.
I ask hon. Members to note the words "no jurisdiction."—
He was bound to accept the direction as being a proper direction.
He was "bound" to accept it.
I therefore see no grounds for any criticism of the Sheriff. The other matters which you raised are not for me to deal with.
Here is the very situation which the other day I said existed and which all of the legal men denied existed. It does not apply to employers. You could not have such a situation existing in the governing class. I challenge the Lord Advocate when he gets up here to-day to make all kinds of excuses or present arguments about this case of Grossett to give me the name of one employer in Scotland or in any other part of the country who has been treated in that way. This is an attitude on the part of the ruling class similar to that which they have been in the habit of holding towards the coloured peoples of the earth. There is one law for them and a different law for the others. This man was found guilty before going into court. Everything in connection with the case was decided before the case went into court. As I said in another letter to the Lord Advocate—but because I made the suggestion in that letter that the sheriff should get a term of imprisonment him self it would not be permissible for me to read it—this matter is very like the Inquisition. The victim is put through the ordeal and then is handed over to the civil authorities for sentence.
I asked the Lord Advocate to pass the material over to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to ask the Secretary of State to intervene in order to get this man liberated. This man's character never had a stain. He has a clean record but he met with a series of accidents in the pit. Of course, the Lord Advocate will tell the House that up to the sixth accident the man still kept on working. The Lord Advocate does not seem to understand that after six accidents, a seventh accident, a leg broken in two places, the result might be a cumulative effect making the man incapable, physically and nervously, of engaging in this work.
Perhaps when the Lord Advocate thinks of work in a pit he imagines somebody sitting down to a bench. Perhaps he imagines a man reading a paper upon how to get coal without using a pick or how to get coal into the hutch by itself. I would like to see the Lord Advocate going down to the pit face and trying a bit of work there. I ask him to consider whether there is any justice in this matter at all, when a man who has had several terrible accidents as this man has had should be forced under the Defence Regulations to go down into the pit again. I am certain that there is not a Member of this House with any intelligence—of course that rules out quite a lot of Members—who would agree with regulations being applied to force a man who has suffered as this man has suffered to go back to such a heavy task.
I will finish with the letter I received from the Secretary of State for Scotland. I will read only part of it:
You will appreciate that, as Secretary of State, I have no jurisdiction in regard to the Local Appeal Boards, which are set up by the Minister of Labour and are responsible to him. Messrs. Tinmans' remarks in regard to the proceedings before the Board in this case, and to the qualification of the certificating doctor, are thus entirely for the Minister, and I am sending a copy of the correspondence to him. As regards the sentence imposed upon Mr. Grossett I understand that, in view of the mitigating circumstances the sheriff imposed a sentence lighter than has been customary in similar cases.
That is signed "Thomas Johnston, Secretary of State for Scotland"—a pronounced Socialist—and he has the temerity to write such a thing as that about a worker who has committed no real offence, a worker who, if his case

had been judicially considered in the courts, would never have been found guilty. It it had been possible to consider his case judicially, if it had been possible to bring in the doctor who certified that he was unfit for work, if it had been possible to bring in Mr. James Coope, the Secretary of the Fife Miners' Union, if it had been possible for a Court to consider this evidence, he would never have been found guilty and never have been sentenced. But the Sheriff had no jurisdiction. The Executive decides, and the Sheriff has nothing to do but pass sentence at the behest of the Executive. And such a sentence on a man of this kind, on a man who has not been just working but working hard, but who felt completely unable to go to this particular job. When he comes into court, the Sheriff, instead of holding over sentence to give the man a chance to consider the situation—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member is criticising the sheriff again, and the sentence he inflicted. That is out of Order.

Mr. Gallacher: I am sorry I have got out of Order again, but I have very bitter feelings about this. I appeal to the Lord Advocate to do something about it. I say that the Lord Advocate in this case has shown servility to the Executive or a vicious attitude towards a worker, which should not be tolerated in any circumstances. I demand of him an inquiry into this whole question of the operation of the law in regard to this man and, if necessary, compensation for the undeserved suffering he has had to endure.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I could not wish to come to this Box to speak on anything better than a miners' case. I wish to put a few questions. These are very difficult cases. There are men who have no objection whatever to going back to the mines provided that they are fit to go back. But these men have been in the mines, they know the work of the mines in all its difficulty, and they know how hard it is for a fit man to carry on day after day, with the result that, especially where there are old disabilities consequent upon mining accidents, there is a natural reluctance to go back, based entirely on their knowledge of disability. When I heard that the Miners' Union intervened in these cases I remembered that I happened to know the miners' agent


myself. I know he is a 100 per cent. supporter of this war in every way, and when he himself feels that these men ought not to be taken back into the mines I am quite satisfied that it is because they are not fit to go back.
What is the position? A man says he is unfit. He is examined and supported by his own doctor. Some other doctor is called in and disagrees with the first doctor. No attempt is then made to decide this issue; nobody else is called in, no higher medical authority, no board of doctors at all, but simply because one doctor disagrees with another it is the employer's doctor, or as it were the doctor acting on behalf of the Ministry of Labour, whose decision is final. That is entirely unfair. I am not concerned with the accusations concerning Dr. Tuke. He may be the man my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) says he is. He may be the subject of contempt amongst the miners of Fife, I do not know, but I do know that it is very unfair to leave such matters in the hands of one doctor and decide a man's fate in that way.
The mining Members of this House are anxious to get back as many miners as possible in order to increase output, but they believe that something needs to be done to decide this issue. A number of men have said to me that they would be prepared to go back if they were fit, but they know they are not fit. What happens? A man's own doctor supports his contention, another doctor disagrees, and the man has to go back. I want to know this from the Lord Advocate. Is any machinery in operation to decide whether a man is fit for a certain job? How in the world does any doctor know whether a man is fit for a certain job underground if he does not know what the job is? Here is a man directed to a special job, and here is a doctor who has no concepttion—and who cannot have any conception—of what is involved in the job. He says the man can do that job, but he is not competent to say so—no doctor is. I want to know what machinery is used to decide whether a specified job is a fit job for a certain type of man.
I hope the Lord Advocate will not attempt to ride off on some of the statements made by my hon. Friend. In his enthusiasm my hon. Friend often lets in his opponent, but I do not want any

riding off on any statement he may have made. I want the situation to be faced. Here is a man suffering from the results of seven accidents, and we know that seven accidents can have a demoralising effect on a man, regardless of physical injury. They can affect his mind and his nervous system. We know what mining demands, and I ask the Lord Advocate, first, how it is that the word of one doctor who contradicts another is accepted as final. I also want to know what machinery he has in operation to decide whether a specified job—a difficult and heavy job—is suitable for certain men. How is a doctor to know that a man can do such a job when he does not know the nature of the job? I would ask the Lord Advocate to examine all those questions and tell the House whether he thinks this man has had fair play.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the doctor representing the man understands the operations underground, and whether he inspected the specified job before giving his decision following his examination of the man?

Mr. Macdonald: Obviously I cannot answer that question, but my point is that very few Members of this House could say whether a man was fit for a specified job underground. If I am asked whether the doctor went to see the work I do not know; I am trying to get fair play.

Mr. Tinker: As a miner, I would like to put our point of view. We have been going about among the miners who have been asked to return to the pits, advising them to go back, and pointing out the need of the State for practical millers with a knowledge of mining. We realise that it is very difficult for a man who is not used to the pit to pick up mining work quickly. At the same time I have never heard of a case of a man like this being asked to return to the mine. If you were to ask practical miners whether they would advise anyone who had had a number of accidents in the pit to return to the mine once he had got away, there is not a practical miner who would advise him to return. In this case we have a man who, from the evidence, had had six rather severe accidents, which made him afraid. When you have had one or two accidents in the mine and have been off work because of


them—and we have all gone through it—you have a dread of returning, and it takes months upon months to get used to the mine again. There is always that fear that another accident may happen, and you lose your efficiency because of it.
Here is a record of six accidents. What is more important than all that, is that the employers, when they were not needing miners, warned this man that if he had another accident they would terminate his employment. When a man is liable to accidents employers try to get rid of him as quickly as possible. The employers had warned this man before the war that should he meet with another accident in future there would be no more work for him. With that in his mind the man got away in his own interest and in the interests of the employers and everyone else. He is brought before this tribunal as an ordinary case. There is where we have a grievance. There should be an examination of what kind of work the man is going to. When a man returns after an accident he is put on very light work. This man had got to go on work which, next to the actual coal mining, is about the most dangerous occupation in mining. The second doctor concerned, without any knowledge of mining, declares this man is fit. His own doctor, perhaps a doctor with knowledge of mining, says he is not fit.
Has not the time come when in cases like that there should be some special men chosen to settle these points of disputes if you are to get any satisfaction from the miners and their leaders? Much as we are prepared to help, we want fair play when we are advising men to return to the pits because of the need for miners. I am not going to criticise the judge, because he probably had to do this, but I think that any judge ought to have the whole circumstances put before him and not be bound to give a penalty without hearing all the evidence. That is a point of law which requires alteration. One always looks on the judge as being completely unbiased. I am not criticising him. I have the greatest respect for county court judges, but when they have to give a decision without going into the evidence something in the law should be amended. I am very thankful to my hon. Friend for having brought this case forward. It is striking and glaring. It will

help us very much if we can get some assurance that this type of case will be examined more thoroughly in future. If the Lord Advocate is satisfied there has been some miscarriage of justice some recompense ought to be ma de to this man.

Mr. Stephen: I wish to join the hon. Members in their protest against what has happened in this case. As I see it, the grievance is twofold. There is a grievance with regard to the Ministry of Labour, and also with regard to the administration when the case leaves the Ministry of Labour and goes into the sheriff court or the county court. I am surprised that the representative of the Ministry of Labour is not alongside the Lord Advocate in the dock because, as I see it, the Ministry of Labour is even more concerned than the legal machinery in this matter. It is obvious from the case as it has been put forward by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that this man has been very hardly treated. From my own experience in connection with the working of the machinery of these committees of the Ministry of Labour, this is not an isolated case where there has been injustice and hardship. There are many other cases. I myself have had similar cases in connection with the administration of these committees. I hope that when the Lord Advocate replies he will not say to us that, so far as the first grievance with regard to the administration of the Ministry of Labour is concerned, he has nothing to do with that because I think it is imperative that the House should have an answer to-day with regard to the methods of the Ministry of Labour in connection with these cases.
There is one point I wish to make regarding this particular case. Supposing this man is sent to work in the pit. He knows he is not fit to work there; his own doctor, who knows most about him, says he is not fit to work in the pit. Then a doctor gives evidence before the Board on behalf of the Ministry of Labour that he is fit to work in the pit and the committee of the Ministry of Labour take this doctor's advice and the man is ordered to go down the pit. He does so. He has all that knowledge, his own know ledge of himself, and the medical evidence in support of his claim. As the result of the man not being fit there might be a tremendous accident in that pit. There are all these accidents taking place in the pits to-day.


It is intolerable that these things should happen and that on the evidence of one doctor like this a committee is swayed into saying to a man who is utterly unfit, "You have got to go down the pit." That man is thinking not only of himself but of the lives of others when he refuses to go down the pit.
I believe that the people who should be put into the dock are the people who were responsible for this decision. I join in demanding an inquiry into the conduct of this commitee. I want to be satisfied to-day by an assurance from the Government that there is to be a full inquiry into the working of this committee. I would like to know the names of the individuals who came to this decision. I think the House is entitled to know who were the members of that committee, who in view of a man's own record of seven accidents, in view of the medical evidence in support of his plea, came to this decision that he should work down the pit. It seems to me that the people who came to a decision like that are a public danger. They should be removed from the position of responsibility which they occupy at the present time. I hope we shall get their names and a promise of an inquiry into their work.
The fact of the letter of the Secretary of State for Scotland shows that the sheriff, in coming to his decision when the man's case was put before him, was, in the opinion of the Secretary of State for Scotland, influenced by the strong case that was put forward with regard to the man's medical condition. It is obvious that there is something wrong with the second stage of the machinery in that the judge is not in a position, when a statement is made in favour of an individual, to refer back for consideration a case to a committee which has acted in the way which this committee did.
I would suggest a change in the legal machinery, so that where the judge has any doubt as to whether the decision of the committee has been right he should have power to refer back when the facts are put before him. The Lord Advocate may tell me that it is putting a big responsibility on the sheriff or the judge to ask him to review the decision of a committee which has been appointed to go into all the facts, and that he is not really able to review those cases. But I think that when it seems to him that something glaringly wrong has taken place, he should

have power to refer back. There are two points that I wish particularly to stress. There should be an assurance that an inquiry will be made into the committee which came to this decision, that the case will be fully gone into, and the medical people involved on both sides brought forward to give evidence, so that the man may be cleared from the stigma which has been attached to him. Also, there should be an assurance that particular care will be taken in future, in such cases, in order that there may not be accidents in pits as a result of men who are utterly unfit being sent back to work in the pits by direction of the Ministry of Labour.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I do not in the least desire to ride off on any technicality, or to keep back from hon. Members who are rightly interested in this question of administration any facts which I have. Of course, I have not all the facts, but I think I have all those which are relevant, and I will explain what occurred before the matter came to my Department, in so far as I have the facts and in so far as I think they are relevant. This man Grossett is 45 years of age. He had six accidents between 1929 and 1938. The cartilage of his right knee was removed in 1929. A muscle of his heart was strained and one of his hands poisoned in 1930. In 1931 he had a break in his left leg. Then he was free from accidents for four years. In 1935 he broke his collar bone and, I believe, a rib as well. Then came another three years during which there was no accident, and during which, I am informed, he worked regularly in the pit. I am not certain about that, but he was certainly working in the pit again in 1938, when he strained his back. I do not know how long he was off after that, but he was back in December, 1939, when he broke his left leg. What the nature of the accident was which caused that I do not know.
It is said by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that the man had been warned that he would not be taken on again by his employers. I do not think his employers went so far as that, but it is true that they sent him a notice, which is common form and which is sent to miners after a certain number of accidents—I do not know how many. [Interruption.] I am told that it is a regular practice, at least in this company, when a man reaches a certain stage, to


send something in the nature of a warning, but not necessarily a final notice that he will not be taken on again. It may only be a practice of this company. How long the man was off work after December, 1939, I do not know. The next thing I know about him is that in September, 1940, he was at work as a foreman on a concrete shuttering plant on the Rosyth housing scheme. He worked there until the date of this prosecution. So far as I know, he was able to carry on that work efficiently and satisfactorily.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of that remark, would the hon. and learned Gentleman mind explaining the difference between the work of a stripper and the work of a foreman on a concrete shuttering plant?

The Lord Advocate: I am not suggesting that they are comparable. In fact, they are quite different. Everyone knows that his work as a foreman was above ground, while that as a stripper was below ground. Whether the actual physical effort is greater for one than for the other, I do not know. Both require considerable physical strength and dexterity. It may be that the work as a stripper is harder.

Mr. Gallacher: I would say it is.

The Lord Advocate: I would not con test that for a moment. I do not suggest that, because the man was engaged on concrete shuttering, that proves that he was fit for stripper's work. In 1941 he was due, like all ex-miners, to register. He registered as an ex-stripper, and stated that he did not want to go back to work in the pit. On 25th August he was examined by Dr. Tuke. It is a little regrettable that the hon. Member went out of his way to attack Dr. Tuke. I have ascertained that he has a very high reputation locally and has been engaged by the Ministry of Labour to examine many people, and that he knows the coalmining industry better than most doctors. I am not going to agree that there is any ground for personal criticisms of Dr. Tuke, either in this case or in any other.

Mr. Gallacher: What about certifying a man who has lost his eye in an explosion—

The Lord Advocate: I am not going to be led off into discussing any other case. The man was certified as fit by Dr. Tuke on 25th August. He was directed on

6th September to start work as a stripper. At this stage, I might remind hon. Members of how this direction comes into operation, under the Defence Regulations. Regulation 58A says:
The Ministry of Labour and National Service or any National Service officer may direct any person to perform such services … as may be specified by or described in the direction, being services which that person is, in the opinion of the Minister or officer, capable of performing.
That makes it quite clear that the question of whether a person is capable of performing the service is a question for the Minister or officer, and for nobody else. If here is any misdirection, the responsibility lies upon the officer who gave the direction and ultimately upon my right hon. Friend who is answerable at this Box for a misdirection of that kind.

Mr. G. Macdonald: Is not the decision to some extent reached on the medical evidence?

The Lord Advocate: As far as the law is concerned, there is no limitation upon how my right hon. Friend or his officer may reach his decision. He is not bound to consult anybody at all, but in the interests of fair play and reasonableness somebody must be consulted, and in point of fact a doctor is consulted. That is the first safeguard, and it is a very valuable safeguard, and it was adopted in this case. Then I come to a safeguard which, though it is not statutory, is under the Regulations, a national Order. A local appeal board is set up for the purpose of advising the Minister as to whether or not he shall issue a direction in a case where there is controversy. I am not responsible for, nor am I familiar with, the working of these local appeal boards. I can only speak as a layman in the matter, but I understand that this board, as other boards, was composed in the usual way. I do not know the names of the members, and I do not know what procedure they followed in this particular case beyond the fact that I understand they had before them three medical certificates. One was from this particular Dr. Tuke to the effect that the man was fit, and the others were from a Dr. Stirling and another—I am not sure whether these were in the same document or not—to the effect that the man was not fit. I do not think that the certificate contained any details.
I do not know how far these doctors are capable of appreciating exactly the differences with regard to physical fitness between a stripper and a miner, but I presume that they have a pretty good knowledge of the conditions in their own part of the country. Doctors in these particular areas always have such knowledge. I think we may take it that when these doctors express their opinion whether a man is fit or not, they have a good idea of the duties which he is to be asked to perform. I will not put it any higher than that. I am informed that this opinion having been put before the local appeal board, the board decided unanimously that the man was fit for this particular work. They made a recommendation to the National Service Officer, who—and it is his responsibility—having received the advice of the appeal board, reissued his directions. All this is a pretty good safeguard. First, you have to have a doctor, and secondly, you have to have a tribunal of this character, and if the tribunal are unanimous, that is a pretty good safeguard.

Mr. G. Macdonald: This tribunal is really deciding a medical question where you have one side saying that the man is not fit and the other that he is fit. They have to decide between these two, and would it not be far better that a medical man should decide a medical issue rather than three laymen?

The Lord Advocate: That is a question of policy, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will, if this is the view of hon. Members, opposite, consider it, but I know that in regard to other cases, it is not always thought advantageous that the final word should be that of the medical referee.

Mr. Macdonald: It should be so on medical questions.

The Lord Advocate: Not always. Sometimes it is preferred that there should be a lay tribunal to adjudicate between opposing medical views. Though I hold no strong views on that question, there are some people who say that on purely medical questions you should leave it entirely to the doctors, and there are other people who say that it is much more satisfactory to have a layman to adjudicate between opposing medical views. That is the system adopted here. The laymen adjudicate. They have before them not merely

the medical certificates but the history of the man.

Mr. James Griffiths: I appreciate the point as to the wisdom of letting a doctor settle medical questions, and I also agree that a layman is often better than a doctor, but this is the direction to a particular kind of work with which we, as miners, are familiar, and we appreciate the nature and the risks of such work. Can the Lord Advocate say what was the experience of the laymen represented on this tribunal and whether they were by their experience qualified to say whether this man was fit or not?

The Lord Advocate: I really cannot say, because I do not know who they were, but this was a layman's appeal board of the coal mining industry, and I assume that all three members, or at least the two technical members, would have a pretty good knowledge of the mining industry in the district. I make that as a fair assumption, and I can easily find out if any further details are asked for.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: Is it true to say that this Board would be familiar with the mining industry? Is it not the fact that these appeal boards are constituted from the personnel of the Court of Referees?

The Lord Advocate: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. All I know is that there is an appeal board which examines into coal mining cases, and I assume that the people who sit on that board know something about coal mining, though it may be that they know nothing about it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: If they know nothing about it, it will make a difference?

The Lord Advocate: That is a point that I would rather not pronounce upon. This is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. They have been carrying on this work for six months, and I am not aware of any criticism having materialised up to date with regard to the decisions of these local appeal boards.

Mr. Tinker: We are only now seeing the effect of the working of these boards?

The Lord Advocate: It may well be so. I do not express any view. I have no responsibility in the matter, and I am not in a position to express the view of my right hon. Friend, but we live and


learn, and I am sure that if any of us discover in any organisation something which is defective in any way, we try our best to put it right. I cannot go beyond that, and I leave it there. As I have said, this man was issued with a fresh direction, following on a report from the local appeal board, to start work on 22nd September. He did not go. This is war time, and that was the equivalent of an order, "You shall go." In the earlier investigations that took place statutory and other safeguards operated. We got to the stage where the order, "You must do that job" was issued. This was an industrial order; it might have been a military or a Civil Defence order. The man did not comply with that order. There was another examination by the doctor to make sure that the matter was gone into carefully, and his previous opinion was adhered to. Thereafter, the man was prosecuted.
That was where my responsibility began. I was responsible for prosecuting the individual, and if I thought some new fact had come to light since the National Service officer issued his direction, which would put a new face on the case, I would have had no hesitation in refraining from prosecuting, but if the National Service officer, representing my right hon. Friend, after all proper safeguards had been observed, issues an order which is disobeyed, it would need a very strong case to justify my saying that the disobeyer of the order should not be prosecuted.

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is using legal terms now. He said, "This man shall be pro secuted." What he meant was that following on the decision of the National Service officer, he would submit the man to court for sentence. If you are prosecuting someone, it is understood that there can be a defence. In this case there was no possibility of a defence, and, therefore, there was no question of prosecution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the instruction of the officer and submitted this man to the court.

The Lord Advocate: I cannot possibly accept that description of the matter. This man received an order. It might have been a military or a Civil Defence order for disobedience of which he could be prosecuted, and he would have just as much or just as little defence as in the

case of a Civil Defence order or a military order. I do not see why the position should be substantially different once you come to the realm of orders. I had to decide whether a man who deliberately disobeyed an order should be prosecuted.

Mr. McEntee: Was he entitled to be represented by solicitor or counsel?

The Lord Advocate: Of course. The man was represented. A solicitor took up the case next day.

Mr. Gallacher: What for? The man had his counsel there, but it was not for anything other than to make the appeal on behalf of the man for mitigation of sentence. It was not for defence. There was no defence.

The Lord Advocate: I hope I have not misled anybody. I think I made it clear that the question of whether the order was justified is not a question for the court. The question for the court is whether the man disobeyed the order. In this case it was alleged that the reason the order was not justified was that the man was not physically fit, but many other reasons might have been alleged as reasons for saying that the order should never have been made. He might have said that he had not the necessary technical skill and should not be sent to a job of this sort because he did not know how to do it; or he might have said that his circumstances at home, and so on, made it quite unreasonable that he should be ordered to go away and do such a job. I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that, on issues of that sort, the court ought to be entitled to overrule the order and say that it should never have been made.
Let me emphasise that in the following way. At the present time the National Service officer knows that he has the final responsibility and that if he goes wrong, he or his chief, the Minister of Labour, has to answer alone. But sup pose the hon. Member's suggestion were followed and it were made competent, by changing the law, for the court always to consider in the last resort whether or not an order should Lave been given, I suggest that you would thereby so weaken the responsibility of the National Service officer that you might do a great deal more harm than good. At present the National Service officer knows that


he has the responsibility, but if he could say, "Well, if I go a little bit too far, the court can always put me right," would that be an advantage to anybody? I suggest it would not. Therefore, although it is not for me to argue the question of policy—for my right hon. Friend is entirely responsible for the administration of this code of legislation—it seems to me, as a humble layman in these matters, that you might do a great deal more harm than good if you introduced the court as the last judge on questions on the reasonableness of orders.
I think I have given every relevant fact that I know of, except that I am informed that this man ultimately resumed his work as a stripper. He has not been there long enough to say whether it will injure his health, or whether he will be able to go on with the work or not, but I am informed that on 27th January he resumed work, and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, he is still working. I do not say, of course, that the period from 27th January to this date in February is sufficiently long to enable one to say whether or not he will ultimately be able to remain a miner, with a full output of work, until the end of the war. It is too soon to say. But I think it right that the House should be informed that he has been back at work for some little time

Mr. Gallacher: What about the 14 days' imprisonment?

The Lord Advocate: He was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment, but as the hon. Member was out of Order in discussing that, equally it would be out of Order for me to discuss whether it was a proper sentence. What I have been arguing is that this was a proper case in which I ought to have prosecuted and, further, I have put my view of the law, which corresponds with that of the sheriff, that in this case the sheriff was bound to accept that the order was properly given. Those are the two points with which I am primarily concerned in this case—the propriety of prosecution and the proper interpretation of the existing law.
The other point which has been raised, the adequacy of the safeguards in connection with the appeal to the local appeal board, is not a matter on which I can say more than I have done. Neither is it, I think, a question of whether the law ought to be altered. On that I have a pretty clear view, although I am not responsible

and am somewhat of a layman in the matter. On the adequacy of the appeal board, I think that I have given the House all the information I have. I have suggested that the framework of the safe guards in this case should be adequate, and there is nothing in the history to show that any injustice has been done. As I said, we shall not be able to see for some time yet whether the man was capable or is capable of being employed underground on this work—I do not think that it is possible to decide at this stage whether the direction was right or wrong, it is certainly impossible now to say; but it was never possible to say that the direction was so clearly wrong that it should never have been given. You are bound to have cases where it would have been better that directions should never have been given. It is inevitable, but I claim that in this case there was no dereliction of duty on behalf of the National Service officer, and no flaw in the procedure which was carried out. Accordingly, I have done all I can to inform the House about this case, and to explain why in our view there really is no ground, for criticism.

Mr. Gallacher: The Lord Advocate says it is desirable that the National Service officer should be in a position to issue a direction without any question of the courts deciding whether it is a good or bad direction. Is it not the case that when a National Service officer issues a direction in a case of this kind, he is ipso facto making the man guilty of an offence, and would it not be better if the court after due consideration should decide whether or not an offence had been committed?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member seems to assume that a man is necessarily going to disobey an order. I hope that is not a common outlook just now. Whenever an order is given in the Army or in Civil Defence, it is an offence to disobey that lawful order, and you can not get out of it by saying the lawful order was unreasonable. That is the case in a nutshell.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to inform the House that the question is so unsatisfactory that I will take a further opportunity of raising the matter with the Minister of Labour.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.